Women Being Conscripted

NI24

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/congress-women-military-draft.html?_r=0

The U.S. Senate is trying to pass a military draft requiring women to register for the draft.

Not sure if this is relevant in Ireland but I thought it was interesting. Personally I'm all for it because I think if an entire generation of people are killed it will make people think twice before marching off to war.

IvyTheTerrible

I think if men can be conscripted, I think women should be too. (I'm against conscription in any case).

But as a deterrent to war? If the loss of an entire generation of young men after WW1 didn't stop WW2, then another loss won't.

seamus

NI24 wrote: »

Not sure if this is relevant in Ireland but I thought it was interesting. Personally I'm all for it because I think if an entire generation of people are killed it will make people think twice before marching off to war.

Problem is that conscription doesn't give you an option to think before marching off to war.

The people who start wars don't care about "losing a whole generation", because neither they or their families will end up on the front lines.

Like Ivy, I agree in principle that there's no reason why both men and women shouldn't be drafted. But I fundamentally oppose the entire concept of a draft anyway, as it's a subtle form of military dictatorship.

silverharp

realistically the US will never fight a war with millions of conscripts , it will tend to be technology driven. I don't think its a big deal but it is a logical thing to do.

meeeeh

silverharp wrote: »

realistically the US will never fight a far with millions of conscripts , it will tend to be technology driven. I don't think its a big deal but it is a logical thing to do.

I agree with this. Professional armies are way better equipped to fight than general conscription anyway.

That being said sometimes you have no say in the matter. The idea that you can always just decide not to fight is a bit naive.

I think the changing nature of warfare makes the point moot, but there's no reason why women shouldn't be conscripted. I wouldn't be for pregnant women in active combat.

Faith

I think this is a really interesting area for discussion from a feminist point of view. My first thought was "I'd be okay with being conscripted if I was doing something like nursing or cooking, but I wouldn't want to be in active combat". But if we want equal rights and responsibilities as men, then that means I should be sent to do anything that men also are, including active combat. So it leaves me with a personal -vs- moral conflict .

Naturally, I totally disagree with the whole notion of a "draft". But if I lay my cards on the table, should I be conscripted, then the overwhelming urge would be to play the "delicate woman" card to try and avoid active duty. It definitely highlights my own internal struggle with feminism.

sullivlo

Faith wrote: »

I think this is a really interesting area for discussion from a feminist point of view. My first thought was "I'd be okay with being conscripted if I was doing something like nursing or cooking, but I wouldn't want to be in active combat". But if we want equal rights and responsibilities as men, then that means I should be sent to do anything that men also are, including active combat. So it leaves me with a personal -vs- moral conflict .

Naturally, I totally disagree with the whole notion of a "draft". But if I lay my cards on the table, should I be conscripted, then the overwhelming urge would be to play the "delicate woman" card to try and avoid active duty. It definitely highlights my own internal struggle with feminism.

I think physical capabilities need to be a factor in combat. In the majority of cases, men will be better equipped/more able to carry the guns and all that jazz. Obviously there are exceptions to the rules, but I reckon I wouldn't be physically able to go to war (forgetting about the actual desire).

I disagree with the idea of being drafted in, but agree on equality. If the men have to, so should the women.

But if it's being forced upon people, perhaps there could be an element of choice within the draft? Like people are given a list of 20 potential roles* (gun holder, driver of tanks, chef, nurse...) and then training is based on choice.


*showing my ignorance in role names here.

Saipanne

Equality of genders = conscription for all.

seamus

But if it's being forced upon people, perhaps there could be an element of choice within the draft? Like people are given a list of 20 potential roles* (gun holder, driver of tanks, chef, nurse...) and then training is based on choice.

For the most part, there can be. If you're already a qualified engineer or a doctor of medicine, they're not stupid enough to send you to the front lines to be cannon fodder, they're going to use you where your skills and qualifications are most useful.

Likewise if your basic training shows up that you're not physically capable for front line duties, they don't want people there who pose a danger. So you'll be deployed as a cook or other admin duties. Or if you're lucky enough you'll be discharged completely.

Even then, recruits do get a choice, or at least the ability to say where they want to go. Though the military may just send you to infantry if that's what they need. The US army is notorious for telling impressionable young men that they can become a doctor or a pilot or whatever they want after basic training, the power is in their hands, but once they're signed up and locked in they find out that if the army need infantry, you're going to be infantry.

Elvis was given the option of being effectively a performer for the military, but instead chose to become infantry. Terrified of the PR disaster if Elvis was KIA in Vietnam, they instead sent him to West Germany, where the odds of any kind of conflict breaking out were minimal. Then they let him live off base in a nice hotel and spend his military time partying.

Lyaiera

I'm not technically against the idea of a conscription. If a global traditional war broke out, it might be necessary. In that case I think conscription might be necessary, and should apply to men and women.

Then there's a couple of positions that have to be dealt with after that. Who decides where the person goes, the person has some input, but it's ultimately decided by the military service. As in you can make a request, it'll be considered, but ultimately it's not enforcement. The arguments against that in the US is that women while not having officially served in front line position, have effectively served in what amounts to a front line positions from their participation in other positions.

After that is the idea of women serving in what some armies call, "front line" positions. These are basically positions where the purpose is direct application of force in a personal, non-technical capacity. At the moment the US army doesn't allow women in front-line positions. Other armies do. Then there's a couple of issues that come from that. Other armies say that if you meet the physical requirements for front line positions, it shouldn't matter if you're male or female. The US maintains that so few women do meet those physical requirements, and other female health issues (mainly reproductive) put enough of a strain on front line positions to exclude women, even if they meet the requirements.

Further than that again is the political and military position of some political and military people that the current requirements are not effective in deciding who is capable of performing front line positions. They mainly suggest that they're not scientific, based primarily on physical requirements rather than mental requirements that in some cases are more appropriate, and that excluding people, either male or female on that basis has harmed the military. Opponents to that view say that this is a feminist ideology that has no place in governing a military, while those in favour of reviews of requirements say it is about achieving a more effective military. Quite a few of them say that the mental factors, especially the ability to withstand the effects of fighting on front line position are more important in achieving effective outcomes in a direct military capacity, but also in protecting people from health issues after the military, like the huge effects PTSD, anxiety, depression, and suicide have had on veterans. A big argument in this is when it comes to higher ranks, and leadership. That leadership effectiveness is not based primarily on physical requirements, although some are necessary, and some people, men and women, who according to mental and social requirements would be extremely effective leaders are excluded due to an undue, unproven, unscientific focus on physical criteria.

I think the bigger issue is when it comes to compulsory military service like happens in most places, which is different to a draft. People are generally given a choice between military and civic service, but I'm against the idea as a whole. While it could be argued that it benefits the person, it doesn't really benefit the service, either the military or civic service. I don't think there are many people in any military who feel their military should be anything other than a professional, voluntary service except in extreme circumstances. A friend of mine legally challenged the country he grew up in about compulsory service, won, and played a very small part in bring it to an end.

Sonics2k

Seth Meyers covered this quite well a few weeks ago, and it's really funny how this whole thing got started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ98pYc8tD0

In a nutshell, the guy who proposed it actually doesn't want it to happen and was against it. It went against him in a hilarious way.

Sapphire

Candie wrote: »

I think the changing nature of warfare makes the point moot, but there's no reason why women shouldn't be conscripted. I wouldn't be for pregnant women in active combat.

Pregnancy would be one of the most straightforward ways to avoid the draft if conscripted.

gctest50

Sapphire wrote: »

Pregnancy would be one of the most straightforward ways to avoid the draft if conscripted.

( Some) could fly drones remotely from a safe area - ideal for pissing off Isis

Sapphire

gctest50 wrote: »

( Some) could fly drones remotely from a safe area - ideal for pissing off Isis

Possibly, but then they'd have to facilitate ante-natal facilities and staff in every military site like that. And have facilities to transfer a pregnant soldier to a nearby centre suitable for pregnancy complications. Then you've got a whole raft of health and safety assessments and accompanying paperwork.

The H&S assessment for pregnant women in most Irish offices runs to a few pages and if there is the slightest chance your job is not compatable with pregnancy - moderate physical work, proximity to chemicals, or even trip hazards, then a doctor will sign you off without question.

It would likely cost a lot more to prepare overseas military bases for ante-natal compliance than it would be worth to discharge on medical grounds and replace with a non-pregnant soldier. Given that there are already women in the military they probably have a procedure in place to deploy them elsewhere for the duration in the way that say, air hostesses are grounded during pregnancy and given other duties.

meeeeh

There are also other issues like what happens when both parents are conscripted. Also another thing in case of invasion, civil war etc the killing of civilians could be greater if everyone is potential solder. For example Zenica massacre was targeted at men and boys of certain age.

Sometimes I think countries that didn't have war on their soil for a while forget how messy it can get. I think general conscription is often inefficient and frankly we could do with less not more of it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meeeeh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I know. I was talking in general and about potential extremes. Americans travel to war. General conscription probably won't happen and those who are eligible but not called up are not in danger of being taken out by invading forces so it not that big of an issue.

I was a lot closer to the mess in former Yugoslavia and there were nations who firstly had very little say on weather they want to go to war or no (having more women in the army would change very little) and secondly male population payed very heavy price for being potential soldiers. I don't think perceived equality would be enough to spread this outside of USA to countries who are more likely to have disputes with their neighbors. The whole thing is a bit daft professional army should be enough.

ChampagnePop

I can imagine there would be a massive baby bomb correlating to the start of a war if this gender neutral consription was invoked.

I'm pro equal treatment though - scrap it for both genders! !

rjpf1980

Women are physically incapable of serving in front line combat - infantry units that close with and kill the enemy. They don't the muscles or bone density or endurance to carry gear for extended periods. A soldier has to remain awake and alert for days on end while wearing a helmet pack body armor ammo and weapons while on the move with limited food or water while on the move across difficult terrain in extremes of cold or heat. Even before a battle begins a soldier will already be suffering from fatigue after digging in or shivering in the wet mud. Killing the enemy may involve more than just shooting but hand to hand combat - wrestling the enemy to the ground and straggling stabbing or beating them to death. During a battle a soldier will probably have to carry a wounded comrade or prisoner to safety.

Women are not up to it.

Lux23

Lots of women do national service in other countries, don't really see the big deal. If you are against war you can always claim that you are a conscientious objector and you may be given another type of role.

rjpf1980

Lux23 wrote: »

Lots of women do national service in other countries, don't really see the big deal. If you are against war you can always claim that you are a conscientious objector and you may be given another type of role.

Women can perform most non combat functions in the military. Front line combat should be strictly for men for the obvious reasons mentioned in the previous end.