-

[Katganistan]

Because someone has to run the country when WWIII starts.

[Katganistan]

Abolish the draft.

Best idea ever.

[The Rich Port]

True that, but I can't imagine the girls I know being drafted, they would freak.

I don't think women are any less capable of handling a draft notice than men.

But they're more fragile and they cry more, though. Duuuuuuuh.

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.

... As well as you should.

You may be a soldier, but you're also a citizen of the United States.

Your bosses answer to Congress.

Like any voter, you have to think about that when you obey their orders without question.

I get that that's a soldier's lot in life, but... There's no reason it can't change.

[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.

I'm sorry but this is a complete non-sequitur.

Your argument is "Men shouldn't complain about the draft because women are denied from serving voluntarily."

This fact doesn't negate the fact that this is an injustice to men - in fact it only further highlights the fact that government-imposed gender roles are detrimental to everyone.

Let's accept that we have a common enemy, rather than engage in some sort unproductive of men versus women blame game argument.

It is not a non-sequitur when the law was written by men, which allows other men to then say women have 'privilege' because of it.

[Uxupox]

I don't think women are any less capable of handling a draft notice than men.

But they're more fragile and they cry more, though. Duuuuuuuh.

The only civvies I ever pay attention to is POTUS, DoD secretary and the state governor.

... As well as you should.

You may be a soldier, but you're also a citizen of the United States.

Your bosses answer to Congress.

Like any voter, you have to think about that when you obey their orders without question.

I get that that's a soldier's lot in life, but... There's no reason it can't change.

In my opinion. The less bloated the better.

[Jumalariik]

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.

I didn't know that I said that honestly. You must be really ripping the straw man from limb to limb. Impressive guy. You should leave the straw guy alone, give him a chance. My point was that women and men should not think that one or the other was privileged or oppressed by the draft. Women were not allowed to serve their countries in combat, men were forced to.
Now when you can learn to read what people say, we can maybe converse. I thought that reading was a skill most people had.

[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?

1. Signing up for selective service is not the same as signing up for 'the draft'.

2. There has been no 'draft' since 1973.

3. Women weren't eligible to fight in most combat roles in 1973.

4. This was an externally applied restriction.

5. Consequently, this whole OP is obviously more thinly-veiled MRA nonsense.

Female privilege.

This^

In greece where we have conscription women can't be conscripted which is absolute bullshit if you ask me.

And again, please explain how male lawmakers making laws that bar women from being conscripted is female privilege?

Clearly the overwhelmingly female legislators are using their majority to keep the poor oppressed men from including women in the draft.
Damn the misandrinistic matriarchy.

Indeed.

Why is it that until fairly recently, females in the U.S. military could not be designated to fight in combat zones?
Please do a little research before you sound foolish.

Exactly. All this stuff about the military being men's work is a stupid relic of sexism. Equal rights, equal duties, equal work, equal pay.

Exactly what I've been trying to point out. Thanks, Risottia.

Wasn't the US draft abolished like forty years ago?
Women aren't permitted for infantry and "direct combat" roles still, so I guess there's not a lot of point in drafting them en masse.

Nonsense. The armed forces could always do with more cooks and sanitary staff....

Oh no, we're not allowed in the kitchens either. Don't you know the best chefs in the world are predominantly men?

And if you'd only toss your socks and underwear in the hamper instead of on the floor......

[The Rich Port]

... OK.

... And?

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

Is that your point?

Because it's... Not correct.

They were sent by men.

I didn't know that I said that honestly. You must be really ripping the straw man from limb to limb. Impressive guy. You should leave the straw guy alone, give him a chance. My point was that women and men should not think that one or the other was privileged or oppressed by the draft. Women were not allowed to serve their countries in combat, men were forced to.
Now when you can learn to read what people say, we can maybe converse. I thought that reading was a skill most people had.

It's hard to extract a point from all of this obtuse bullshit you're writing down.

And whatever point you make ends up being moot and brainless.

Your point is... The draft/Selective Service sucks for everybody.

Yeah. Great. Good point.

How does that answer the question of why women aren't allowed to be signed up for Selective Service?

[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.

From your link:

The Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted as of January 24, 2013, following a unanimous recommendation by the joint Chiefs of Staff. [9] Both men and women are eligible to serve in front line combat and complete combat operations.[10] The lifting of the ban was announced at a Pentagon press conference by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, and the joint chiefs chairmen, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Panetta said that the ban was lifted because “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation,”

Please do a little research before you sound foolish.

Sorry, subtly calling "foolish" people who ask for fairness three years after The Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted (January 24, 2013) doesn't make a good service to the cause of Feminism.

Perhaps you missed the qualifier in that first quote. I've helpfully made it stand out.

And the fact remains that the male dominated legislators have still not changed the law; making it sound like it's females' fault for not getting drafted is certainly something I will call people foolish for.

No, most jobs in the army are technical jobs that anyone with the knowhow can do. The main issue is combat arms, which requires both strength and resilience.

Which a lot of women have. Their vaginas shouldn't be excluding them from the draft.

Tell the dicks who make the law to change it then.

[Jumalariik]

I didn't know that I said that honestly. You must be really ripping the straw man from limb to limb. Impressive guy. You should leave the straw guy alone, give him a chance. My point was that women and men should not think that one or the other was privileged or oppressed by the draft. Women were not allowed to serve their countries in combat, men were forced to.
Now when you can learn to read what people say, we can maybe converse. I thought that reading was a skill most people had.

It's hard to extract a point from all of this obtuse bullshit you're writing down.

And whatever point you make ends up being moot and brainless.

Your point is... The draft/Selective Service sucks for everybody.

Yeah. Great. Good point.

How does that answer the question of why women aren't allowed to be signed up for Selective Service?

Well I wasn't responding to the question. I was responding to a prior post.

Now, if my points are moot and brainless, why even respond to me? Clearly I'm too obtuse for your time, which I'm sure is very sought after by many people.

[Occupied Deutschland]

This^

In greece where we have conscription women can't be conscripted which is absolute bullshit if you ask me.

And again, please explain how male lawmakers making laws that bar women from being conscripted is female privilege?

There's a rather obvious impact of lobbying and public perception at work in the modern day. When enacted the reasoning was different, of course. But the relevant point is how these laws STAY on the books as they were written as opposed to being changed into something less sexist.

And the reason they stay the sexist way they are is because feminists and womens organizations make little to no noise on the topic of changing those laws to be less sexist (SWAN being the only group I've heard of who advocates in favor of expanding the draft, and I suspect I've only heard of their advocacy on the issue due to a veteran mother). Charlie Rengal's repeated proposals in Congress, for example, never receive support from the women's organizations who, nominally, might claim to be in favor of them (though even that support I find not just difficult but impossible to come across). The law stays sexist because it's not something feminists push for (something they can afford not to push for because of 'female privilege' and the continued societal perception that the military doesn't need women...Though, admittedly, it's a 'privilege' only insofar as not being conscripted is a 'privilege' for anyone rather than something that shouldn't happen to anyone of either gender, but the point remains with the current formation of US law on the topic).

Of course, one could certainly correct me and refer me to the organization or feminists who are pushing in favor of such an expansion of the draft. I believe the point remains that they aren't loud about it even if it is nominally a position they hold. Because there's 'more important' things or some other such reasoning, I'm sure (though one could probably argue from a feminist perspective, as SWAN does, that the limitation of the draft acts as a de facto discouragement of even female volunteering for the military, though I'm unsure how much stock I'd put in that claim myself...)

[Katganistan]

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.

Who are you implying has suggested that? It had best not be me, since that is not at all what I said.

What I SAID was that women have had to fight to be included in combat, have had to disguise themselves to be included in combat, and that those who had been preventing them from combat and the draft are, in fact, male legislators and male officers.

In no way did I ever suggest it was fair. I told them to stop bitching about female privilege and start bitching at the males who wrote the laws and resist changing the laws.

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.

And again, that is because of the shitty laws that males wrote. They should be pressed to change the shitty law, rather than whinging that it's females who are at fault, and feminists who are at fault.

It's not rocket surgery*. Demand the law be changed to everyone or no one, and watch male legislators come up with the same stupid ass justifications as have been made in this thread about the weaker sex or threat of rape and torture.

Men get raped and tortured too, or have some of you forgotten?

* yes, that was deliberate.

[Syrixia]

Female privilege.

Well I say that female privilege should go out the door if we all have equal rights. It's only fair.

Yeah. The feminazis and the patriarchy are both wrong. Whatever happened to equal rights. When the Declaration of Independence said all men were created equal, it most likely meant "man" as in mankind and was construed by the patriarchy, which is now being responded to by the feminazis in just bizzare and over-the-top ways. Calm down, people.

[The Rich Port]

It's hard to extract a point from all of this obtuse bullshit you're writing down.

And whatever point you make ends up being moot and brainless.

Your point is... The draft/Selective Service sucks for everybody.

Yeah. Great. Good point.

How does that answer the question of why women aren't allowed to be signed up for Selective Service?

Now, if my points are moot and brainless, why even respond to me? Clearly I'm too obtuse for your time, which I'm sure is very sought after by many people.

Huh. You have a point there.

Hallelujah.

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.

Who are you implying has suggested that? It had best not be me, since that is not at all what I said.

What I SAID was that women have had to fight to be included in combat, have had to disguise themselves to be included in combat, and that those who had been preventing them from combat and the draft are, in fact, male legislators and male officers.

In no way did I ever suggest it was fair. I told them to stop bitching about female privilege and start bitching at the males who wrote the laws and resist changing the laws.

It's an especially insipid sentiment considering that the draft was unfair because MEN WROTE IT.

When the current Selective Service System came into operation, there was ONE woman in the Senate, Nancy Kassebaum, who was a Republican, if liberal enough to mastermind an Obamacare-esque state health insurance system.

[The 93rd Coalition]

Why does anyone?

[Galloism]

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.

No, the privilege is "I shouldn't have to fight because you're a big strong man who'll protect me" schtick.

See? I can do that bullshit too.



Here's the thing - the combat roles thing was certainly sexist against women, and the draft was certainly sexist against men.

Also, men and women can both be sexist against themselves and each other. News at 11.

[The Rich Port]

Why does anyone?

Sad to say, but wars don't often make sense or start for one specific reason.

The U.S. is ill-served by not being prepared.

[Eol Sha]

Why does anyone?

Legal penalties.

[Imperializt Russia]

... 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.

This is directed at Rich Port, but I couldn't be bothered to edit it down.

You prepare for the least likely event that is still possible, ie Russia invading Europe or North Korea charging the DMZ. Those are feasible situations.
The US being invaded is infeasible due to no nation having the resources, assets or otherwise capability or reason to do so.

[Ragnarum]

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.

Slavery logically made sense to people at the time. Was it right? Hell no.

What is your point that I haven't already addressed?

[Asherahan]

And again, please explain how male lawmakers making laws that bar women from being conscripted is female privilege?

There's a rather obvious impact of lobbying and public perception at work in the modern day. When enacted the reasoning was different, of course. But the relevant point is how these laws STAY on the books as they were written as opposed to being changed into something less sexist.

And the reason they stay the sexist way they are is because feminists and womens organizations make little to no noise on the topic of changing those laws to be less sexist (SWAN being the only group I've heard of who advocates in favor of expanding the draft, and I suspect I've only heard of their advocacy on the issue due to a veteran mother). Charlie Rengal's repeated proposals in Congress, for example, never receive support from the women's organizations who, nominally, might claim to be in favor of them (though even that support I find not just difficult but impossible to come across). The law stays sexist because it's not something feminists push for (something they can afford not to push for because of 'female privilege' and the continued societal perception that the military doesn't need women...Though, admittedly, it's a 'privilege' only insofar as not being conscripted is a 'privilege' for anyone rather than something that shouldn't happen to anyone of either gender, but the point remains with the current formation of US law on the topic).

Of course, one could certainly correct me and refer me to the organization or feminists who are pushing in favor of such an expansion of the draft. I believe the point remains that they aren't loud about it even if it is nominally a position they hold. Because there's 'more important' things or some other such reasoning, I'm sure (though one could probably argue from a feminist perspective, as SWAN does, that the limitation of the draft acts as a de facto discouragement of even female volunteering for the military, though I'm unsure how much stock I'd put in that claim myself...)

This ^ there is next to no support from women for something that will take their freedom away especially in greece where the patriarchy is still firmly in place.

[Ayreonia]

And again, please explain how male lawmakers making laws that bar women from being conscripted is female privilege?

Why does it matter who makes the laws? The end result puts women at an advantageous position. That's privilege by definition.

See, conscription differs from voluntary military service in that it's an obligation rather than a right (even if pro-draft politicians here in Finland love repeating "it's both a right and a duty" all over again). If women are denied from serving voluntarily, either completely or by being relegated to jobs they don't want, that's being barred. Being exempt from conscription is not.

If, say, female lawmakers passed laws that exempted men from paying taxes, would you not call that male privilege?

[Imperializt Russia]

And again, please explain how male lawmakers making laws that bar women from being conscripted is female privilege?

Why does it matter who makes the laws? The end result puts women at an advantageous position. That's privilege by definition.

See, conscription differs from voluntary military service in that it's an obligation rather than a right (even if pro-draft politicians here in Finland love repeating "it's both a right and a duty" all over again). If women are denied from serving voluntarily, either completely or by being relegated to jobs they don't want, that's being barred. Being exempt from conscription is not.

If, say, female lawmakers passed laws that exempted men from paying taxes, would you not call that male privilege?

I don't know enough to be sure, but I think you're conflating "privilege", the concept, with "a privileged position".

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Why does anyone have to sign up for the draft?

[Ifreann]

Why does anyone have to sign up for the draft?

Because any kind of cut to the military is an act of treason.