Can it be that what is good for the gander is good for the goose?
I think that the requirement to register for the draft should no longer be gender specific.
We have women at flag rank levels in all the armed services.
As a progressive, I always insist on equality and parity. Traditions are a splendid concept as long as it does not it does not impede rights of people or the needs of here and now. Conservatives néed to keep this in mind.
On this issue, I find myself to the left of Biden.
Your thoughts....I don’t mind the idea but I do not agree with the left that there is no such thing as two sexes. I don’t think women, as a sex, are as suited as men to combat. I don’t think women, if drafted, should be on the front lines without review of their suitability for combat.
No, the "left" does not say that there are not two genders, just that opportunities are neither granted nor denied based solely on the gender to which one belongs.
All people, men and women, should be subject to review as to qualifications for combat. Women have broken into many of the once male only preserves of the military. So, now, no one gets to just pick and choose.
You are denied only due to failure to meet qualifications that have been established as relevant to job performance.
There are the physiological differences between men and women. While there is a greater probability that fewer women would meet physical requirements for front line combat, there are always a few that can, while there are men who cannot qualify. The fewer number of women who can should be afforded the opportunity to participate.
Disqualification is based upon standards, not just gender in itself. So, the idea of women being excluded from the military, its service and the national obligation to be available for such just because they are women is passé.What a person can physically do does not equate to what they can psychologically handle. Although I have no issue with drafting women I do not believe they should be forced onto the front lines to kill.
I am in perfect agreement.
In order to BE equal... you must have to be held to the SAME standards.
There is no true equality, if there are different standards, exemptions, and allowances made.
That is just inequality dressed up in a different label, in this case preferential treatment given to one sex over another.
And perhaps the reason there isn't the change you suggest, is that our society values women over men, even in the prism of 'equality' for all, the truth is, men are held at a lesser value.
Which begs the question... why?Could one answer be the common-sense truth of the adage that you don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? As in; the future of our species depends on continued regeneration.
I think that is a capability that deserves a special valuation.
GAWhich qualifies as a very sexist, antiquated and privileged outlook that has no place in 21st Century America.
Why don't you just say they belong at home, barefoot, pregnant. and supporting a man. Seen but not heard.I have heard that "barefoot" phrase before. I did catch the sarcasm, (right?).
I do agree with the gist of the previous comments. I think that women should have equal access to all opportunities. And that it should be their choice. And that absolutely no standards should ever be lowered to accommodate a drive to "equality."
However, I also think women deserve to start from a pedestal, not a kitchen floor. Individually they can fall off of that pedestal, but that too would be their choice.
So, I don't support drafting women. That wouldn't be their choice.
GASo, why do they get to start from a pedestal, GA,? Patriarchy.?
Patriarchy has nothing to do with it Cred. Are you inferring that I put them on a pedestal because I have the patriarchal authority to do so as a male?
My reason is simple, it is because they can make babies.
GA
Perhaps, but while it may have been facetious on my part, you can be certain that there are many who would say just that with full conviction.
And therein lies the answer as to why we face the downfall of what is known as Western Civilization.
First-wave feminism was cause driven and focused on women’s right to vote.
Second-wave feminism primarily defined women as being a subject of systemic exploitation through ‘the patriarchy’.
Third/fourth wave approaches have become confused and contradictory, ideas of intersectionality, redefining what a ‘woman’ is in the first place, along with 76 newly defined sexes that are to be accepted and transgender rights to compete as the sex they identify as.
Yes, your idea that women should be put on a pedestal is practically prehistoric and comes straight out of Patriarchy 101.I am missing your point here, Ken. Do you say that equal rights between the genders are inconsistent with the continuation of Western Civilization?
Does Western Civilization fall because gender roles and probably racial status for certain groups in the society are not in their "traditional" balance?No, not at all.
There is nothing wrong with women allowed equal status or for race to have no place in law or social norms.
We have moved past that, to the point where we are trying to normalize the insane at the expense of the best interests of the 99.5%.
In the effort to be all inclusive we have currently 72 genders, we allow for transgenders to compete in women's sports (its downright discriminatory not to allow it), and those who identify as any of the 72 sexes other than the two "normal" ones are brought right to the forefront of equal rights and victimhood.
So, if how a person feels is all that matters. Like when Oprah argues that Meghan Markle has a right to feel oppressed, discriminated against, and seen as a victim because that is how she feels... we are entering into a reality where how a person feels, no matter how wealthy, no matter how irrational (mentally disturbed) is the "reality" that we (all others) have to accept and work with.
We are at the point where there are no mores, be they social norms or moral guidelines that all people agree to or that society at large accepts.
We are, in essence, the exact opposite of Israel... where they are united by faith and by service to their country.I can't say that I disagree with you in regard to all the gender bender stuff.
I disagree with both Oprah and Markle. Markle should realize that as part of the Royal Family, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
We are looking for constants and foundations, it may well be that my line in the sand differs from yours.
Faith and service to the country is what the armed forces are about today, that does not mean that there is not room for improvement within this society.
Oh well. I am aware my perspective on issues such as this is considered wrong and outdated. Fortunately, for me, I am very comfortable with my perspective—wherever it comes from.
GA
The are many economic, cultural disadvantages to being a woman in this society, this needs to,be corrected. But allowing exemption from the draft due to gender difference is a no-go in the modern age.
For the most part, there are physiological differences between men and women. In my view, I would have no problem with women registering for the draft, going through the same physical as men, and deemed fit to do the same job as any male soldier, and go through the same training. And naturally, there are many jobs in the military that are non-combat These jobs should be appointed by best qualifications to do the job. Women should not be singled out be given jobs that are non-combat due to their gender.
Women should be drafted, but should be disbarred from combat roles if they cannot perform the peace-time men's standards for PT tests. As of now women have severely reduced qualification expectations, those expectations are lowered even further in the event of a draft, and in such situations they should be made to work the motor pool, laundry, or desk jockey positions. Can't have equality in combat roles if they can't perform to the same physical standards as men, which is why we have those reduced qualifications to begin with, because generally speaking the majority cannot.
The exception to this is establishing women-based companies, but then everyone would just cry about the rightful segregation. Only the cream of the crop of women get placed in combat roles, and I support our current system as is.
In short: Go ahead and make women draft-able, but first set the women's standards for PT the same as men. However, realize that our military will be severely diminished in number if we treat everyone equally.Kyler, I did say that standards need be shown as relevant to successful job performance and that they are to be applied to every person equally.
And there are women that could meet standards generally reserved for men. Those standards need not be lowered.They need to be lowered for the general female population to make it into the military is what I was getting at, and I know what you said I was just reiterating in my own words since the PT standards are drastically different between men and women in the military and that hadn't been mentioned yet.
As far as I can recall, as well, the only two females to ever pass a previously male-only PT course (Ranger school) had the standards lowered significantly. I could be wrong about that, but I remember it caused a lot of commotion and still does when brought up around certain circles.I hear you, Kyler. I acknowledge that the physical strength standards for the average man verses the average woman will be different.
Again, there is the correlation between training and what is necessary for job performance. Most of the jobs in the military are administrative and there is no appreciable difference between the way a man verses a woman can use a pencil or tap on a keyboard. Basic training is for purpose of instilling discipline and meeting fitness standards that are average for the respective gender.
When we talk about combat areas, the standards are different. For example, a firefighter must be able to lift a 160 pound person. That standard is correlative to effective job performance, and cannot be compromised. So, it will turn out that there will be more male firefighters than female because of that standard. Women are not eliminated because they are women, but are eliminated based on that standard and I still dare to say that there may well be an "amazon" or two that can toe the line with the best of the men.It sounds to me like this discussion would rather prove that women have the capability to be equal if we just gave them all the chance, rather than discussing what is realistic, cost-effective, and efficient for recruiting to the US military. Coming from the Marines I'll speak on this from that perspective.
The cost of a single recruit in the US military: "This year, recruiting one Marine cost $6,539, including advertising, college fund and enlistment bonuses. Train that marine and you add $1,614, including the uniform, gear, laundry and chow. Then give that recruit some real classroom learning and tack on an additional $301. Remember, you haven’t paid him yet."
This generously-low estimate doesn't take into account all the different injections, X-Rays, transport, gear, ammunition, ordinance, utilities, housing, etc. that are mandatory or likely during the average recruit training experience. Now we take into account that 3 out of 4 women fail to meet the lowered standards for women, and we can say it'd be safe to surmise that women just shouldn't be considered for combat roles (MOS with 11b), because our current system shows they are not cost-effective nor capable.
Women do very well in combat roles that require a more "outside of the box" ability to function, such as aviation (pilots), but even if they meet their standards all of those women couldn't carry a kitted out, full-sized male, and thus the most I would support right now is gender-segregated companies. As Mike said, women do better than all the men in certain roles, but they are put into positions that probably won't require them to drag the deadweight of a male.
We can virtue signal all day, wanting women to be drafted and treated equally as far as gender roles, but the fact of the matter is it would be a total waste of time, money, and resources to even redesign a concept for a new system when we already place women in combat and non-combat roles efficiently. Most roles, even non-combat, that go into the fleet overseas see some form of combat anyways.
The military is a confusing place, and the conversation has so many facets and nuances to those facets I could rant on it all day. We haven't even discussed the psychology of blending men and women in combat roles, and the statistics on sexual assault, or even casualty rates among blended squads/platoons/companies in combat/non-combat-that-see-combat roles. Gender-segregated companies are the only thing I could fully support, but I'd still want reduced standards for women and to keep them off of 11b MOS roles.
As a final note, as well, we aren't even discussing the PR nightmare of women being captured in combat, being specifically targeted by the enemy, and then being filmed with what they do with the women/their bodies posted all over the internet. Sometimes they even send the footage/bits and pieces to family members back here in the states as a form of terrorism, and if it were women rather than men we'd hear about it a lot more.
Women in combat roles for equality is nice and flowery for an idea, but practicality says it would play out horribly.
Draft 'em all, and put them where you want except anywhere near the frontlines for any extended period of time.I would say that what is cost effective is use of all available assets to the fullest extent possible.
Lowered standards for women only apply when the assignment that they receive do not require that they be proficient in the areas that comprise the difference between the male and female standards.
A female aviator will have to adhere to standards greater than that of the general female population, if that job requires certain levels of strength as part of its function. If the male standard for a fighter pilot has been determined as job relevant, then the woman will have to meet this as well.
Because of our society's inculcated sex roles, your idea of separated combat units make a lot of sense. The presence of paternalism in regard to women in such an environment affects the unit's effectiveness. All are to be tested, there may only be 1 in 50 women that can do,the heavy lifting, while 1 in 5 men are capable. That simply means fewer women in these critical military functions. Women know that because of participation in certain career paths, men have the advantage in promoting their careers which is reflected in faster and higher level promotions. If we allow women the opportunity to compete, I cannot be said that the institution is guilty of sex discrimination.
Because of the psychological effects, separate units may be necessary. I think of Star Trek and Starship Troopers that show a world where women are not seen in the way we see them today, a unisex attitude reigns. But in our primitive 21st century, we need to make accommodations.If I had the time to break this down any further I absolutely would, and provide more real-life examples of why women just should not be considered for combat roles on the frontlines. Unfortunately this conversation could go on forever, and social issues have no place in warfare outside of learning to combat them within your ranks and use them against the enemy.
Women were not built for combat, their biology alone does not afford them anywhere near the capabilities of their male peers outside of the rare example that is considered a genetic defect by relevant sciences, or just one of those "freaks of nature" types who are naturally more testosterone-laden. If that is not enough, then realize that our male enemies will look at them as prime targets for the most horrible acts of war, and it will breed more social problems than being inclusive could ever solve.
To be fair to equality, though, we already put women in combat roles when they are proven to be capable and that is why we see those rare examples all over the news any time they achieve such statuses. I think this conversation is a non-issue outside of drafts, and the issue is created when you want women to be held as equals to men when they are not except in very rare cases that are already addressed with equality and fairness.You've have made a good point and one that I will have to ponder. I read an article from an Israeli newspaper editorial criticizing women in combat roles due to their generally reduced physical capability.
But we can agree that there is no reason that the draft cannot apply to both young men and women?We've been in agreement on that the whole time, draft 'em all.
I'm a strong advocate for reducing physical requirements based on aptitude scores (ASVAB). We lose many great minds to physical requirements most of the population cannot live up to, and that's where you get statements like "crayon eaters" about the intelligence levels of certain branches. You don't need to carry my heavy ass two-hundred yards to study tactical engagement and geography, and I'd venture to guess that if you could carry me you're less likely to succeed on a desk.
So many things to discuss, so little time.The greatest minds I have come across are exclusively found in two realms.
People who have created their own businesses. And Special Forces (SEALs, Rangers, Delta).
The level of intelligence required to make a GOOD Special Forces soldier is off the charts. They say the most brilliant minds often skirt along the lines of being psychotic.
CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths. And to be a leader of a small SF unit (be that Sniper Squad or SEAL Team) one most definitely must have a psychotic nature.
“He is a charismatic leader who inspires people to follow him. A strategic thinker who can master the details. A tireless worker with incredible focus and problem-solving skills. He is well-liked by his employees but is also able to make and execute unpopular decisions. Above all, he is an exceptional communicator who can convey a vision to any audience, from Wall Street to the most junior employee.”
The quote above could describe an ideal CEO. But it’s actually a portrait of a corporate psychopath, provided by a law enforcement official. People with psychopathy crave power and dominant positions, experts say. But they are also chameleons, able to disguise their ruthlessness and antisocial behavior under the veneer of charm and eloquence.
Traits which are absolutely ESSENTIAL for a good leader in combat situations, where the goal for Special Forces units often comes down to not just accomplishing the mission or navigating the terrain, but overcoming opposition intent on killing you.
A "normal" person panics, goes into flight mode, seeks to survive when the bullets start flying, people start screaming and bombs start exploding, it takes a particular personality to thrive in those conditions... and you can't train or learn it... it is part of who you are, or it is not.
Most don't have the traits necessary. Traits that allow men to push their bodies well beyond the norm, past where most of the population could. Enabling them to endure 30 kilometer marches with 200 pounds of gear on them, enabling them to go days without food or sleep and press on with the mission. In the military, for the truly elite units, you need truly elite individuals... physically and mentally.My take is that very few women can attain to this level. And those who can should not be denied the opportunities. But it's a rare thing for a woman. An Amazon force could not in anyway equate a Seal Team or Delta Force. The later are highly discipline and elites.
I would never want physical requirements lowered for combat roles, if anything we could stand to raise them a bit for the general population. There have been so many rightful complaints that we let too many fat-bodies into the military, and if you ever walk around a Navy hospital it doesn't get much more apparent than when you observe the bordering-300 lbs officers waddling about the place. If you can't maintain the utmost physical standards, and beyond, then you need to get your ass out of my platoon; no one in their right minds want the type of people they're forcing through for quotas watching their backs these days.
However, for positions like engineering, public affairs, communications, the nuke boys, and anything that is mostly physical stagnation and brain power we reject a lot of people who would be much better suited for those positions than the jock types who regularly make it through. Those examples you give, which seems like you want to counter or diminish my stance but I am not sure, are the extremely rare individuals in society that you only come across once in a blue moon relatively.
For the Army only 31% of candidates pass, it is even less at 25% for SEAL training, and for MARSOC I think it's even lower. I'm not talking about the cream of the crop here, I'm talking about bolstering positions no able-body wants to work, or likely does not have the test scores to work said positions. We don't need the massive bodybuilder better suited for hauling ordinance writing reports when he can hardly read and spell (I can't tell you how many reports I had to rewrite because of my superiors' literacy issues), we need that stringy, nerdy kid who enjoys sitting inside all day and could be writing handbooks rather than fanfiction because he washed out of recruit training.
As for women in combat, they can serve purposes that men cannot, but as I said earlier I believe it would cause more social issues to allow them into combat than being inclusive of them is worth. It is as you say, women just aren't built for it, even those rare few who can scrape the lower pinnacles of male prowess don't inspire much confidence.
If you've ever been to Israel, men and women have compulsory requirements to serve in the military. It's been that way since the start of the country in the 1940s. When I've visited Israel, I've spoken with families about it. Their belief is that everyone has something to contribute to the defense of the country. A girl who was finishing her required time in the military told me she was proud to have served in the IDF and was thankful for the experience.
When I was in the Army, I trained with women. They worked in support roles. Many of them were more on the ball than some of the guys. There are many who served in the Army who would support this idea.
I think our attitude should change. It's time the United States adopt the attitude of Israel and believe that every adult citizen has something to contribute to the defense of the country.There is also another point about what you have stated.
All serve.
All feel they have a bond, that it is their country, that both sexes carry the burden of supporting their nation.
Their is a unity and bond that comes from that.
Their is a maturity and responsibility that comes from that.
While we here in America have no such requirements. I would be willing to bet that we have more people over the age of 35 still living with their parents who have never ventured out on their own here in America than Israel has for a population.
And when you have adults, in their mid 20s and mid 30s who have never been mature, responsible adults... you have the type of sorry state of affairs in a nation that we see here today.
I agree with what you write but there is a catch, nature has made some specific differences between a male and female. The biological cycle is also different and that means there are certain gender specific roles. What does America want? defeat on the battle field?
I walked into a laundromat and found that all the men were on one side and the women were on the other. I was very happy to walk over to the "women's side" to fold my clothes.
I did not want to be on the men's side ...
at all.
Is this reaction and inclination not strange?
I think it is typical.
I think women are very different from men and if they are in the military they should be given assignments that they are naturally interested in.
If a woman is interested and willing to train like a man, she is the exception. If she wants this opportunity and qualifies, I don't see a problem.
Women should be allowed to register for the draft. Once in, they should be allowed to choose their area of service based on skills, aptitude and interest. Believe me, most women do not want to serve directly on the front lines along side men.
If they cannot be given a choice as to where they would like to serve, then no, do not allow women to register for the draft.Kathryn, it seems you walk tall into a mosque! Lol. And I can't imagine anything like that in social context or settings. But I can agree with you that if a woman sees herself fit for the frontline battle field, and she deem qualify, and interested, good for her to go.
There men are seperate/seggrate from women. The laundromate you walk into pictures it well.
Related Discussions
- 1077
Navigating the Election: Weighing the Pros and Cons On Candidates
by Sharlee 8 days ago
When it comes to deciding who I will vote for in a presidential election, the process can feel overwhelming. The issues are complex, and the significance of the decision weighs heavily. At its core, I know that voting for a president is about choosing someone who aligns with my values, and my...
- 45
Transgender athletes and fairness
by J Conn 2 years ago
It appears that this issue is gaining traction with a pair of stories from today. What are your thoughts on transgender athletes and sports?South Dakota bans transgender athletes from competing in women's sports:https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dakota … 50773.htmlPenn athlete that...
- 29
U.S. Women Soldiers in Combat. Yes or No and Why.
by LiamBean 11 years ago
Should combat roles be opened to women?
- 57
Should women be required to register for military draft?
by puddingicecream 13 years ago
All US male citizens are required to register for the military draft when they turn 18. Your thoughts?
- 43
Should Woman be allowed in combat roles in the US military
by Credence2 11 years ago
Hi, folks, the link that I provide is from an article written by Patrick Buchanan, not one of my favorite guys. He is blunt in his opinion and I think just as wrong. http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-surrend … 00599.html
- 86
Democrats, are we in a circular firing squad?
by Credence2 3 months ago
I can’t believe it, we have allowed the aura or stench of Trumpism to affect our own party with insiders leading the way.We are actually ready to throw President Biden under the bus for one poor debate performance?While, Trump has broken every rule in the book as a convicted felon and he gets...