-

[Arlenton]

We'll if you want to change it purely because it's "traditional" then yes it is.

But in a hypothetical non-nuclear WW3 I don't think drafting women into the military is a good idea. Those who want to join should still be welcomed and even encouraged though.

Or get rid of the Selective Service System, if that's what you mean.

I didn't mean that.

[Imperializt Russia]

How is a female soldier falling pregnant before deployment different to, say, a man snapping tendons in their knee just before deployment? Neither would be fit for duty and would not deploy. Military units are rarely "full-strength". Strength fluctuates. It honestly doesn't matter.

Use of rape and other "inhumane" methods is no different to the use of torture and violent torture against men. ie, it's still a war crime.

Depends on whether we'd be fine with court martialing women for being pregnant and imprisoning them for it.
They do for self-inflicted injury in other cases.

Why would a man or woman be imprisoned for semi-random incidents that leave them unfit for duty?
Shall we just round up the ~60% of the country not fit for service at any one time and save the bother?

[The Rich Port]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

So... In other words, females have not been called up as soldiers due to an arbitrary reason?

If it's tradition... Well, traditions eventually get forgotten, usually because they clash with logic or because people get tired of following them, unless someone insists on arbitrarily continuing it for it's own sake.

That is the textbook definition of a tradition.

Plenty of stupid traditions have been phased out or forgotten. Why not this one?

[Saiwania]

If it's tradition... Well, traditions eventually get forgotten, usually because they clash with logic or because people get tired of following them, unless someone insists on arbitrarily continuing it for it's own sake.

Well your first mistake is in assuming that. Some traditions are timeless. The religious or political traditions tend to be around for centuries if not thousands of years. Certain majorities voluntarily choose to observe things that they consider the proper way to run a society. Democracy is no less of a system adhered to only by tradition, it hasn't been shown to be an inherently superior political system and has only been around for a relatively short amount of time within human history. One day it might collapse or it could go on.

[Uxupox]

Depends on whether we'd be fine with court martialing women for being pregnant and imprisoning them for it.
They do for self-inflicted injury in other cases.

Why would a man or woman be imprisoned for semi-random incidents that leave them unfit for duty?
Shall we just round up the ~60% of the country not fit for service at any one time and save the bother?

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

[The Rich Port]

If it's tradition... Well, traditions eventually get forgotten, usually because they clash with logic or because people get tired of following them, unless someone insists on arbitrarily continuing it for it's own sake.

Well your first mistake is in assuming that. Some traditions are timeless. The religious or political traditions tend to be around for centuries if not thousands of years. Certain majorities voluntarily choose to observe things that they consider the proper way to run a society. Democracy is no less of a system adhered to only by tradition, it hasn't been shown to be an inherently superior political system and has only been around for a relatively short amount of time within human history. One day it might collapse or it could go on.

Are civil rights and the right to vote also traditions?

Oh, wait, no, they're the fundamental founding principles of this nation.
"
There's a huge difference between the Bill of Rights and prohibiting women from serving in the armed forces for "reasons" that have been disproven over and over again.

Why would a man or woman be imprisoned for semi-random incidents that leave them unfit for duty?
Shall we just round up the ~60% of the country not fit for service at any one time and save the bother?

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

... Civilians make the laws for the military.

We can campaign to NOT chalk it up to the UCMJ.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would a man or woman be imprisoned for semi-random incidents that leave them unfit for duty?
Shall we just round up the ~60% of the country not fit for service at any one time and save the bother?

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

[Farnhamia]

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

Well, vehicular homicide is a thing but homicidal - or is this suicidal - tennis? No.

[Imperializt Russia]

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

Well, vehicular homicide is a thing but homicidal - or is this suicidal - tennis? No.

I'm apparently being told that a soldier receiving an injury preventing them from deployment will get them imprisoned.

[Ragnarum]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

So... In other words, females have not been called up as soldiers due to an arbitrary reason?

If it's tradition... Well, traditions eventually get forgotten, usually because they clash with logic or because people get tired of following them, unless someone insists on arbitrarily continuing it for it's own sake.

That is the textbook definition of a tradition.

Plenty of stupid traditions have been phased out or forgotten. Why not this one?

Let me put it simply.
In the event of a draft, the vast majority females would be a lot more reluctant and a lot less prepared to go into combat than most males would. You should not have to look far to see why.
You also need to understand, generally, females in the military are a small minority who have passed extensive training and are sure that they wish to pursue this career, they are often very devoted to their jobs, which is brilliant. But again, there is only a small amount of them. Most males in the past and probably even now in most places are the ones expected to be doing the 'scrapping' as it where, as such they are often more psychologically and physically prepared for a kind of draft or conscription etc. That males are more often employed is a 'tradition', but it makes practical sense considering human factors.

Traditions are sometimes there for a reason. Many ancient 'traditions' are taken for granted in modern society because they logically make sense to most people, even now. These 'traditions' vary between cultures, but I suppose if you are talking in a more broader view, the concept of government and a full time military is somewhat of a 'tradition'. In reality, they are logical conceptual advances. However, some things are so basic that they don't need to be changed.

[The Rich Port]

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

Pregnancies don't even count as an injury.

It's just something that happens because we're human.

You don't see them imprisoning servicemen with families.

It's also not like men are EXACTLY identical to women.

Women have wombs, men don't.

Admittedly... I think that men should at least get to stay with their families, if, say, their wife is expected to go into labor soon so that the soldier can be there when his children are born.

The UCMJ apparently needs some work.

[Striton]

-

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I say we don't. The bureaucracy is crazy enough without adding millions more at once.

Because they can't be assed to change it I guess.

Invasion by whom?

Quite a few already do.

Trivial, but pointless.

How?

Spoilers: there are shitbags in the Armed Forces.

... I'm not sure I understand your opposition to it.

As a member of the Armed Forces I prefer not forcing people to dedicate themselves to the defense of our great nation for no particular reason.

It's pointless because nobody will invade the U.S.? You prepare for everything, even what you think is least likely.

That's why we have the draft. And nukes.

Civilians with military training are a severe minority.

For good reason. We don't need 100 million trained soldiers, and only 1% of people are fit for service.

I'm not sure how the Scandinavians do it, but I take it that... They pay their soldiers, right? Money pumped into the economy means more people spending, more startups, more jobs, pensions, social security, etc.

I believe Norway pays them while in service, not for the rest of their lives.

Also, where does this money come from?

By our own logic, all Selective Service candidates receiving military training makes it more likely that the alleged shitbags will hopefully be outnumbered by the sane and civically minded.

No, it just means there are more disgruntled shitbags. I'm not sure how you think conscription will magically make people not shitbags.

[Geilinor]

Or get rid of the Selective Service System, if that's what you mean.

I didn't mean that.

Why not make a change to a law that no longer fits our times?

[Jumalariik]

So it's fair to give equal rights, but unequal risks (I mean, "opportunities for service")? I'm all for women's rights, but if they don't take the equal risks, then they need to compensate in some other department.

They are being denied the ability to do so, but you think it's unfair to you?

Ok, I agree that the issue is bad that women could not serve in the military. On the other hand, your argument is kind of flawed in one way: women were not allowed to go in the service and fight in combat situations. Fine, that's bad. Men on the other hand were FORCED. No or very few American women were forced to walk in mine laden ambush prone VC land, men were. How many American women were forced by the US to die in swamp muck? I'm not saying women have privilege, I'm saying that we should call it even with this. Women were not allowed to serve their country in combat, men were forced. Those are two equally bad things.

[The Rich Port]

They are being denied the ability to do so, but you think it's unfair to you?

Ok, I agree that the issue is bad that women could not serve in the military. On the other hand, your argument is kind of flawed in one way: women were not allowed to go in the service and fight in combat situations. Fine, that's bad. Men on the other hand were FORCED. No or very few American women were forced to walk in mine laden ambush prone VC land, men were. How many American women were forced by the US to die in swamp muck? I'm not saying women have privilege, I'm saying that we should call it even with this. Women were not allowed to serve their country in combat, men were forced. Those are two equally bad things.

... OK.

... And?

The men were sent to die by... Women?

Is that your point?

Because it's... Not correct.

They were sent by men.

[Katganistan]

Again, the males wrote the laws barring them from being drafted, and still bar them from many combat positions, and you think it's unfair to you?

As a clarification, women will be allowed to serve in all combat roles by ~2016. Doesn't excuse or explain the prior century and change of exclusion, but I'd just like that to be known.

Yes, but the bitching is about female privilege in being excluded from the draft and by extension combat, when it was not a situation that females approve of or have not been trying to change.

However, male privilege and patriarchal attitudes regarding women being unfit for such duty or too distracting to males, endangering males who would seek to protect them, are the reason that the laws were written in such a way -- by males.

Largely, it has been the fact that women who were in combat theaters despite being barred from combat roles have, in fact, ended up under fire that led to the change in the US. Really, the US military has been quite backwards -- woman have served in combat roles in other countries' militaries for decades.

[Katganistan]

I'm still wondering how women being barred from combat positions they are willing to take is "female privilege".

That's ok. I'm still wondering how men being forced to go into life-threatening situations against their will based on nothing but their gender is male privilege.

The privilege is in being able to make the "no, you women can't do it because you're weak and need protecting" bullshit stick.

[Uxupox]

Not our call. Chalk it up with the UCMJ.

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

Never. But a serviceman getting self-inflicted injuries will get imprisoned in war time as described in the UCMJ Article 134.

[Katganistan]

Why is it that until fairly recently, females in the U.S. military could not be designated to fight in combat zones?

Um, because the males wouldn't let them.

And yet they've served in the military since the Revolutionary War, in the extremely limited fashion they were allowed -- or disguised as men.

Please do a little research before you sound foolish.

Who are you talking to?

I presume you did not miss the qualifier "in the US military"? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

[Alyakia]

i get inordinate amounts of joy from knowing that there is massive overlap between the "why don't women have to register", "men are just stronger ok" and "women can't be soldiers" groups

[Uxupox]

Tell me the last time a tennis injury got someone imprisoned.
I'm eager to hear it.

Or a car crash, the justification will be surely juicy.

Pregnancies don't even count as an injury.

It's just something that happens because we're human.

You don't see them imprisoning servicemen with families.

It's also not like men are EXACTLY identical to women.

Women have wombs, men don't.

Admittedly... I think that men should at least get to stay with their families, if, say, their wife is expected to go into labor soon so that the soldier can be there when his children are born.

The UCMJ apparently needs some work.

It really depends on the command really. Some are flexible, some others aren't. For example if you are stuck in a conflict zone and there is virtually no chance of witnessing the birth of your child. Of course if you are posted in Germany, Italy, Japan or somewhere considered not a hot zone you can ask your chain of command for leave to see your family.

[The Rich Port]

i get inordinate amounts of joy from knowing that there is massive overlap between the "why don't women have to register", "men are just stronger ok" and "women can't be soldiers" groups

A lot of people forget that the civilian government is in charge of the military, not the other way around.

I suppose it's in the military's interest for the civilian government not to think about that for too long.

[Katganistan]

Simple. If we all have equal rights, then it is only necessary that we all should be equally serving our country in my opinion. The draft is a horrible thing that either kills you or completely destroys your life upon your return, yet this forced military service is only for males. Why shouldn't women have to sign up for the draft? What are your thoughts on this, NSG?

Pretty simple: do you want your 18 year old daughter in the military?

Of course not, for at least the majority of Americans.

Then there is the tomboys....

Who wants their 18 year old son in combat?

And actually, given I know a few women in different branches of the military and also know their parents, I can say that that small sample was and is proud of their daughters' service.

[Uxupox]

i get inordinate amounts of joy from knowing that there is massive overlap between the "why don't women have to register", "men are just stronger ok" and "women can't be soldiers" groups

A lot of people forget that the civilian government is in charge of the military, not the other way around.

I suppose it's in the military's interest for the civilian government not to think about that for too long.

The only civvies I ever pay attention to is POTUS, DoD secretary and the state governor. And congress as well even though I can't vote for them sadly.