Woman and The Draft

[Neutraligon]

Liberty and Justice for ALL.
Well ordered Militia.

The Nation can only be free if Citizens defend the Nation.

It might be convenient that mothers of young children be conscripted, stay at home and work in munitions factories while other conscripts serve on the Front Line.

But the general Principle that ALL Citizens must defend the Republic is a good Principle.

Why? I mean if you don't like your country why defend it?

[Torisakia]

Seeing as how women aren't allowed on the front lines, I don't see why it's necessary to draft them. But lets do it anyways, since people like that stuff.

[The Orson Empire]

Seeing as how women aren't allowed on the front lines, I don't see why it's necessary to draft them. But lets do it anyways, since people like that stuff.

It's about equality. Drafting only men is unfair and probably sexist.

[Ifreann]

Seeing as how women aren't allowed on the front lines, I don't see why it's necessary to draft them. But lets do it anyways, since people like that stuff.

Didn't the US abandon that rule about women in "combat roles"?

[Haktiva]

fuck yeah make them sign up! equal rights, equal responsibilities.

[Torisakia]

Seeing as how women aren't allowed on the front lines, I don't see why it's necessary to draft them. But lets do it anyways, since people like that stuff.

Didn't the US abandon that rule about women in "combat roles"?

Probably, I don't follow what the government does.

[New Connorstantinople]

I think that women should not be exempted from the draft for rear echelon roles, unless they are mothers.

[Ifreann]

I think that women should not be exempted from the draft for rear echelon roles, unless they are mothers.

No, having rear echelon mothers is too funny an opportunity to pass up.

[Estado Nacional]

The Israeli draft process is really good regarding this.

[Oceasia]

Honestly, i don't support conscription, but if your country have conscription, draft the women too.

[Scomagia]

Conscription is abhorrent anyway. No one, whether they're male or female, should be forced to kill for The State.

[Trezchoix]

If you want the same rights as a man your should do your equal pull. And don't wine when you fail its plain simple Men and Women are different. Men can do certain things and Women cant, Women can do certain things and Men cant. But as far as military conscription yes they should be drafted just like men and held to a standard close to a man. If one wants to fight for their nation they ought to be allowed. As for conscription I think it should ONLY be used if your nation is in immediate danger. And National service I do believe in especially the Swiss style service. Even though almost all of my libertarian minded friends, colleagues would be against it.

[Nervium]

I don't think women should be forced to serve the draft.

I don't think anyone should be drafted.

[New Chalcedon]

Also, on the broader scale: Yes, please send all your women of childbearing age to the front lines carrying weapons and dressed as soldiers. Your nation's enemies thank you - even if you "win", a war on such a scale, involving female conscription, will create a demographic disaster for your country.

Same thing if you send all your men to front line. But you know neither one of that will happen because Generals in pentagon aren't really going to be interested in having 156.95 million conscripts primarily because that will destroy the economy and secondly because they generally prefer to be able to feed, clothe and arm the soldiers.

No, but if 10 million are conscripted (as happened in WWII, out of a significantly smaller population), the demographic disruption to the nation would be less profound if they are all men, than if they are half men and half women. (More on that below)

If you kill all the men, your going to have just as big of a disaster.

One need not kill off the entirety of a generation to have a severe, profound demographic impact on the subject people. (More on that below)

Your conclusion relies upon a flawed assumption - namely, that the draft will always exist.

Also, on the broader scale: Yes, please send all your women of childbearing age to the front lines carrying weapons and dressed as soldiers. Your nation's enemies thank you - even if you "win", a war on such a scale, involving female conscription, will create a demographic disaster for your country.

Of course, if you're drafting able bodied women you can leave half of them and half the men at home and still have the same number of troops as if you drafted all the able bodied men. (YMMV, consult a census for more accurate ratios.)

OK; these three posters make largely the same counter-point to my original post, so I'll answer them all at once.

Biology.

It comes down to that one word: Biology. In the event of a significant portion of the adult population dying off (for instance, a series of lost battles with conscripts, in each of which casualties could run into the hundreds of thousands), it is always, always less bad to lose men than women, all other things being equal. Why?

Because biology dictates that a man can do his part of procreation in an hour; a woman takes most of a year to do her (far, far larger) share. It's part of why women were traditionally kept off the battlefield (the remainder having to do with a much less accurate - or defensible - assessment that woman are incapable of military duties - women are just as capable of being soldiers as men). Israel, as one of the few nations that conscripts women, acknowledges this - only 3% of the IDF's frontline combatants are female.

I believe in personal freedom - if a woman desires to join the military, prove herself on the same terms as men and rise as far as her talents will take her, more luck to her! Some do, and more power to them (especially when it comes to beating the entrenched sexism so often seen in military establishments) - I was particularly pleased to hear last month of the promotion of Adm. Michelle Howard (USN), as the first female four-star admiral in the US Navy is a hopeful sign that women who choose to sign on are less constrained by gender barriers than they once were.

But I oppose drafting women for frontline military service for the same reason that I would stand aside and let a woman into the NBC shelter before going in there myself in the event of a nuclear exchange.

Simply put, she's more necessary for the future of the human race (or more narrowly, the demographic future of my nation) than I am.

The Israeli draft process is really good regarding this.

Indeed it is - women are conscripted, but not obliged to serve in frontline roles.

[Qanchia]

Same thing if you send all your men to front line. But you know neither one of that will happen because Generals in pentagon aren't really going to be interested in having 156.95 million conscripts primarily because that will destroy the economy and secondly because they generally prefer to be able to feed, clothe and arm the soldiers.

No, but if 10 million are conscripted (as happened in WWII, out of a significantly smaller population), the demographic disruption to the nation would be less profound if they are all men, than if they are half men and half women. (More on that below)

If you kill all the men, your going to have just as big of a disaster.

One need not kill off the entirety of a generation to have a severe, profound demographic impact on the subject people. (More on that below)

Of course, if you're drafting able bodied women you can leave half of them and half the men at home and still have the same number of troops as if you drafted all the able bodied men. (YMMV, consult a census for more accurate ratios.)

OK; these three posters make largely the same counter-point to my original post, so I'll answer them all at once.

Biology.

It comes down to that one word: Biology. In the event of a significant portion of the adult population dying off (for instance, a series of lost battles with conscripts, in each of which casualties could run into the hundreds of thousands), it is always, always less bad to lose men than women, all other things being equal. Why?

Because biology dictates that a man can do his part of procreation in an hour; a woman takes most of a year to do her (far, far larger) share. It's part of why women were traditionally kept off the battlefield (the remainder having to do with a much less accurate - or defensible - assessment that woman are incapable of military duties - women are just as capable of being soldiers as men). Israel, as one of the few nations that conscripts women, acknowledges this - only 3% of the IDF's frontline combatants are female.

I believe in personal freedom - if a woman desires to join the military, prove herself on the same terms as men and rise as far as her talents will take her, more luck to her! Some do, and more power to them (especially when it comes to beating the entrenched sexism so often seen in military establishments) - I was particularly pleased to hear last month of the promotion of Adm. Michelle Howard (USN), as the first female four-star admiral in the US Navy is a hopeful sign that women who choose to sign on are less constrained by gender barriers than they once were.

But I oppose drafting women for frontline military service for the same reason that I would stand aside and let a woman into the NBC shelter before going in there myself in the event of a nuclear exchange.

Simply put, she's more necessary for the future of the human race (or more narrowly, the demographic future of my nation) than I am.

The Israeli draft process is really good regarding this.

Indeed it is - women are conscripted, but not obliged to serve in frontline roles.

What about women who choose not to have children? Should they receive equal treatment as men and be drafted? Or do you think they should be exempted for another reason that you are about to explain?