-

[Ragnarum]

Just don't have a draft, done. We're a democracy.

Whether or not women can serve in combat roles?
If they can pass the same physical standards that men have to go through.
That's equality.

I did used to think the same way. But its a lot more complicated than just physical standards.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

No draft, no problem.

[Tekeristan]

Just don't have a draft, done. We're a democracy.

Whether or not women can serve in combat roles?
If they can pass the same physical standards that men have to go through.
That's equality.

I did used to think the same way. But its a lot more complicated than just physical standards.

How so?

[Imperializt Russia]

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Sure. Modern conflict has changed significantly from the idea of front line warfare - the idea that these two armies will engage at this point here, for example - a kind of conflict that is at its most extreme trench warfare (like WW1) where you've got maybe a mile or so of no-man's land, trenches and not as much danger or things happening behind that. In modern conflicts (think Afghanistan for example), fighting tends to be asymmetrical, with conflict happening pretty much all over the place. You don't really have an advancing force in the same way, and neither does your enemy so it's mostly used to describe areas where there's a lot of fighting. The difference being of course that non-frontline soldiers are at a much higher risk, and need to be able to fight, a lot more than they would have been a few decades ago.

That's not really true, as the Iraqi security forces discovered in 2014. It's a line of reasoning that's peculiarly endemic to military theorists, that The Next War Will Be The Same As The Current/Last One.

Lessons being learnt about the IS conflict is that it is far more like what we know in the west as "conventional warfare" rather than "insurgency", what we keep mistakenly calling it. The Iraqi security forces were built, trained and structured to fight an insurgency.
But IS isn't an insurgent militia anymore.

More generally, that assertion as to why women are being considered for combat roles doesn't actually make any sense. If anything, that would be an argument to remove women from the services entirely.

[Chessmistress]

Female privilege.

We don't like to talk about it, but it does exist in certain respects.

Historically, the draft simply excluded you if you were female. The approach wasn't a gender-neutral test ''Do you meet thresholds of physical rigour necessary for armed service'' with the end result being that most females were excluded through the test. No, the draft just as a matter of presumption, excludes you from the risk of getting draft just because you are a girl. In the Vietnam war, men lived in fear of being drafted into the jungles to die (and ironically, because of patriarchal leanings of society, it was seen as ''un-manly'' if you admitted to this to the public in general; even those who were protesting the war had to frame it in terms of the general unethical-ness of sending people to die as opposed to the human fear of being drafted and sent to a place where you could be bombed). Meanwhile, the women were completely free from this terror.

If there's female priviledge in this case, then it is not women who are perpetuating it.

Meh, apart from few women who are subtly trying to suggest that not being drafted is still fair since we weren't, in the past, allowed to a combat role.
Such subtle implications can be traps.
My idea is that not being allowed to a combat role was both a privilege and a discrimination, but much more a discrimination, meant to keep away women from a position of power and perpetuating the stereotype of women as weak. On the other hand it's even true that having the chance of a career without having to deal with the risks of a combat role can be viewed as a privilege. But, as I said, the balance is not good for us, is a zero-sum game.
Exactly the same for the draft.

No draft, no problem.

But the draft is still in place, so we cannot avoid the issue.

[Olerand]

Isn't it a little odd to refer to women as females? In French you really wouldn't call une femme une femelle, it's very weird. Is this common in English?

Anyway, if you think this is unjust -which is true- then you should advocate for expanding the criteria. Although you might find that it is actually right-wing politicians in America who will most strongly oppose this measure.

[Imperializt Russia]

That may be for the simple reason that two different languages have different language rules.
"Woman" and "female" are synonyms. We don't have substantial modifiers for terms unlike in French and other European languages, so there is no difference in saying "woman" or "female".

[Natapoc]

That may be for the simple reason that two different languages have different language rules.
"Woman" and "female" are synonyms. We don't have substantial modifiers for terms unlike in French and other European languages, so there is no difference in saying "woman" or "female".

Sometimes there is. Sometimes women is intended to suggest gender whereas female is intended to suggest sex. Sometimes they are different things.

[Olerand]

That may be for the simple reason that two different languages have different language rules.
"Woman" and "female" are synonyms. We don't have substantial modifiers for terms unlike in French and other European languages, so there is no difference in saying "woman" or "female".

But isn't it odd? Technically, une femme is une femelle...But une femelle is a plant, or an animal, a human would be une femme.

Is it not similar in English, is it normal to qualify humans in everyday speech as male and female, instead of woman and man?

[Alvecia]

That may be for the simple reason that two different languages have different language rules.
"Woman" and "female" are synonyms. We don't have substantial modifiers for terms unlike in French and other European languages, so there is no difference in saying "woman" or "female".

But isn't it odd? Technically, une femme is une femelle...But une femelle is a plant, or an animal, a human would be une femme.

Is it not similar in English, is it normal to qualify humans in everyday speech as male and female, instead of woman and man?

Only typically when speaking scientifically I would imagine.

[Sanctissima]

That may be for the simple reason that two different languages have different language rules.
"Woman" and "female" are synonyms. We don't have substantial modifiers for terms unlike in French and other European languages, so there is no difference in saying "woman" or "female".

But isn't it odd? Technically, une femme is une femelle...But une femelle is a plant, or an animal, a human would be une femme.

Is it not similar in English, is it normal to qualify humans in everyday speech as male and female, instead of woman and man?

It's fairly common to use both terms interchangeably in English.

As someone who's bilingual in English and French, it took me quite a while to get used to the differences in both languages.

[Olerand]

But isn't it odd? Technically, une femme is une femelle...But une femelle is a plant, or an animal, a human would be une femme.

Is it not similar in English, is it normal to qualify humans in everyday speech as male and female, instead of woman and man?

It's fairly common to use both terms interchangeably in English.

As someone who's bilingual in English and French, it took me quite a while to get used to the differences in both languages.

Interesting. A little uncomfortable, but I see.

[Sanctissima]

It's fairly common to use both terms interchangeably in English.

As someone who's bilingual in English and French, it took me quite a while to get used to the differences in both languages.

Interesting. A little uncomfortable, but I see.

Yeah, the distinction never really developed in the English language. I don't know the etymological history behind it, but for whatever reason both words remained entirely synonymous.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Isn't it a little odd to refer to women as females? In French you really wouldn't call une femme une femelle, it's very weird. Is this common in English?

Anyway, if you think this is unjust -which is true- then you should advocate for expanding the criteria. Although you might find that it is actually right-wing politicians in America who will most strongly oppose this measure.

In BCT and AIT we don't call them women.

[Infected Mushroom]

Female privilege.

We don't like to talk about it, but it does exist in certain respects.

Historically, the draft simply excluded you if you were female. The approach wasn't a gender-neutral test ''Do you meet thresholds of physical rigour necessary for armed service'' with the end result being that most females were excluded through the test. No, the draft just as a matter of presumption, excludes you from the risk of getting draft just because you are a girl. In the Vietnam war, men lived in fear of being drafted into the jungles to die (and ironically, because of patriarchal leanings of society, it was seen as ''un-manly'' if you admitted to this to the public in general; even those who were protesting the war had to frame it in terms of the general unethical-ness of sending people to die as opposed to the human fear of being drafted and sent to a place where you could be bombed). Meanwhile, the women were completely free from this terror.

If there's female priviledge in this case, then it is not women who are perpetuating it.

Does it matter?

[Olerand]

Isn't it a little odd to refer to women as females? In French you really wouldn't call une femme une femelle, it's very weird. Is this common in English?

Anyway, if you think this is unjust -which is true- then you should advocate for expanding the criteria. Although you might find that it is actually right-wing politicians in America who will most strongly oppose this measure.

In BCT and AIT we don't call them women.

In what?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

In BCT and AIT we don't call them women.

In what?

Do you even IET bro?

BCT is Basic Combat Training (Boot Camp), AIT is Advanced Individual Training (We learn our specific MOSes).

[Crusader occupied mecca]

Because female pows might get raped. Isn't the whole point of America's welfare state to protect the least and weakest among us? That would be why liberals favor this. Conservatives would believe that wome are better in supporting roles in the military like nurses or administration, so that's why they would favor this.

[Olerand]

In what?

Do you even IET bro?

BCT is Basic Combat Training (Boot Camp), AIT is Advanced Individual Training (We learn our specific MOSes).

I don't even know what IET is. So in the military -American I presume?- you refer to women as females? Men are males? I guess.

[Imperializt Russia]

BCT and AIT are phases of US military training.

I suspect their point is "gender doesn't matter here".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Do you even IET bro?

BCT is Basic Combat Training (Boot Camp), AIT is Advanced Individual Training (We learn our specific MOSes).

I don't even know what IET is. So in the military -American I presume?- you refer to women as females? Men are males? I guess.

Yes. At least in Initial Entry Training; I haven't graduated yet.

[Great Sofannia]

"Have one woman and one man left, and you only get two babies for the next generation of warriors.
Have ten women and one man left, and you get 200,000 babies for the next generation, along with extremely high divorce rates."

[Olerand]

BCT and AIT are phases of US military training.

I suspect their point is "gender doesn't matter here".

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

[Imperializt Russia]

BCT and AIT are phases of US military training.

I suspect their point is "gender doesn't matter here".

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

Yeah, but French language rules are obtuse, charitably speaking.

Female and woman, male and man, are synonymous in English. Because we have very few modifiers for terms, I suspect.

[Saiwania]

I suspect their point is "gender doesn't matter here".

It is a more impersonal term that is suited for a military. The whole purpose of recruit training is to strip people of their individuality and have them instead think of themselves as part of one unit, and to harden them enough to be moderately prepared for fighting on a battlefield.