-

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Why does anyone have to sign up for the draft?

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

Meh, as a liberal pinko commie I'm already considered a traitor.

[Asherahan]

Why does anyone have to sign up for the draft?

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

For huge powerful countries like Russia,USA and China there should be no draft but for small countries like Greece/Israel etc draft is a must.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

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

For huge powerful countries like Russia,USA and China there should be no draft but for small countries like Greece/Israel etc draft is a must.

Nobody's going to invade Greece. They'd have to take over all their debts.

[Ifreann]

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

For huge powerful countries like Russia,USA and China there should be no draft but for small countries like Greece/Israel etc draft is a must.

Sure, let's just let the communists win!

[Alvecia]

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 think the point is that this is not a voluntary privilege. To say "oh this is just female privilege" implies some sort of fault on the part of women, or implies that it is something both under their control and that is their responsiblility to correct.
Which is simply not the case.

[Asherahan]

For huge powerful countries like Russia,USA and China there should be no draft but for small countries like Greece/Israel etc draft is a must.

Sure, let's just let the communists win!

When did the US become communist?

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Sure, let's just let the communists win!

When did the US become communist?

It will once you abolish the draft. *nods*

[Asherahan]

For huge powerful countries like Russia,USA and China there should be no draft but for small countries like Greece/Israel etc draft is a must.

Nobody's going to invade Greece. They'd have to take over all their debts.

Says you.

[Asherahan]

When did the US become communist?

It will once you abolish the draft. *nods*

I wish shit like that was that easy.

[Ayreonia]

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".

This may be a stupid question, but bear with me since I'm not a native speaker of this hu-man tongue: is there a difference, and if yes, is it more than semantic?

I think the point is that this is not a voluntary privilege. To say "oh this is just female privilege" implies some sort of fault on the part of women, or implies that it is something both under their control and that is their responsiblility to correct.
Which is simply not the case.

Who's making that implication? I sure didn't.

[Alvecia]

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

This may be a stupid question, but bear with me since I'm not a native speaker of this hu-man tongue: is there a difference, and if yes, is it more than semantic?

I think the point is that this is not a voluntary privilege. To say "oh this is just female privilege" implies some sort of fault on the part of women, or implies that it is something both under their control and that is their responsiblility to correct.
Which is simply not the case.

Who's making that implication? I sure didn't.

The only other time privilege tends to be used in everyday conversation these days is when it's "male privilige" or "white privilige". While the specific definition of the word has no negative implications, the very use of it in a context such as this does, and to think otherwise is naive.

[Granada Hills]

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?

Because a male can impregnate many females in a nine month period of time, but a female can only have one pregnancy term in the same nine months.

[Alvecia]

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?

Because a male can impregnate many females in a nine month period of time, but a female can only have one pregnancy term in the same nine months.

Most of us here are up to speed on the biology of human reproduction. How is it relevant again?

[Alyakia]

Because a male can impregnate many females in a nine month period of time, but a female can only have one pregnancy term in the same nine months.

Most of us here are up to speed on the biology of human reproduction. How is it relevant again?

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

[Imperializt Russia]

Most of us here are up to speed on the biology of human reproduction. How is it relevant again?

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Not for 18 years. 15, charitably.

[Alyakia]

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Not for 18 years. 15, charitably.

paraguay, i choose you!

[Alvecia]

Most of us here are up to speed on the biology of human reproduction. How is it relevant again?

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Are we saying that if women are allowed to fight, there won't be enough people left at home to make babies?
Cause that's a two person job, unless you're proposing polyamorous relations in times of war.

[Alyakia]

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Are we saying that if women are allowed to fight, there won't be enough people left at home to make babies?
Cause that's a two person job, unless you're proposing polyamorous relations in times of war.

i'm saying if you're going to lose 70% of your population and end with a gender imbalance on 4:1 you really really want it to be 4 women to 1 man and not vice versa

and yeah, the pope pretty much said "go for it" last time that happened

[Granada Hills]

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Are we saying that if women are allowed to fight, there won't be enough people left at home to make babies?
Cause that's a two person job, unless you're proposing polyamorous relations in times of war.

I didn't say that women couldn't fight, let those that want to fight volunteer, but it makes more sense not to draft them.

[Neutraligon]

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 am sorry but in what way is forcing women up on a pedestal privilege?

[Immoren]

if you're in a state of total war, especially prolonged total war, it becomes very relevant

Are we saying that if women are allowed to fight, there won't be enough people left at home to make babies?
Cause that's a two person job, unless you're proposing polyamorous relations in times of war.

Artificial insemination stations for the times of total war.
It's most logical choice.

[Enheduanna]

From the OP:

If we all have equal rights, then it is only necessary that we all should be equally serving our country [...]. The draft is a horrible thing that either kills you or completely destroys your life upon your return [...]. Why shouldn't women have to sign up for the draft?

The short answer: women don't have to because women shouldn't have to.

But the long answer? To start, this post has some insight:

Men are deemed to be a more ideal fit for military service.

This is something called Toxic Masculinity. Now, don't get in a huff by the term. Just go with it for now. It simply means that there are aspects of society (of—dare I say it—the Patriarchy) that are harmful to men. Right or wrong, people see men as tougher, stronger, more fit for physical tasks. Men, it would seem, are "deemed to be a more ideal fit" for combat.

Just think about it. How many people argue that women shouldn't be firefighters 'cause they're too small and weak to pull people from burning buildings? These are the same people who think men are all big and strong. The same general concept of Men Tough/Women Weak is just as bad for men as it is for women. Especially when it comes to the draft. "Men can handle forced conscription better than women so only men need to do it." Ridiculous.

It is that darned Toxic Masculinity hurting men. It isn't evil feminazi hate groups stripping away men's rights. It is the culture we live in that sees all men as tough enough to take it. Even when some are not that tough. Even when none should actually have to take it.

With a lot of qualifiers, one poster sums this up:

Men, in general, make better baseline soldiers than women, in general.
Biologically, most men are better than most women on a physical level when it comes to the requirements to be a soldier. Men, in grunt, frontline combat roles, are simply better at war than women, on average.
This isn't to say that some women are better than some men at being soldiers, just that, in the grand scheme of things, men do better

Neck deep in this culture of Toxic Masculinity, the poster above uses Science! to prove that most men, on average, in general, in the grand scheme of things, totally do better soldiering than women. You can almost hear a "therefore men should be soldiers on the front line instead of women" added onto the end. These kinda folks, in general, on average, don't see the cultural environment in which they live to be toxic. They see it as normal and use statistics, generalizations, and Science! to point out that, gosh darn it, this is the way the world is.

We're expendable, unfortunately.

So says another poster, presumably a man. Either this poster actually believes men are expendable (which I doubt) or he's mocking the general attitude. Society sees men as expendable. How is this not bad for men? How is this not a toxic idea? Men are not expendable. Men shouldn't have to go through what the OP up top said. Kill men or destroy their lives all because of a false, toxic belief held by a majority of people? No thanks.

Check out this exchange:

I really wouldn't want my 18 year old son in the military either.

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

Again, this is Toxic Masculinity. "Men are tough while women are weak. Men can handle combat on the front line while women would freak. Men are expendable while women are valuable." This is all bullshit. But it is bullshit held in the hearts of many, many people in our culture, of many people in our forums.

This is toxic bullshit held in the hearts of our lawmakers, too. The people in charge of writing draft laws are just as human as the posters in this thread. Some of them don't want their delicate 18 year-old daughters on the front lines because they believe women can't handle it and they have Science! to prove it.

the reason [the draft laws] 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

Although the quote is ultimately wrong and misuses the word "sexist", it does bring up a great point. Who is responsible for changing the draft laws? Is it the male executive branch of government? Perhaps the male majority in the Supreme Court. Maybe the Senate or House of Representatives, both with huge male majorities, should change draft laws? The above poster seems to think that feminist organizations should make noise on the topic. Maybe because that's how America works these days? Lobbyists and interest groups make laws instead of lawmakers?

I mean, look at this exchange:

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.

(Since this is an internet forum and not a classroom, I'm gonna try to keep the jargon to a minimum. We've already used Toxic Masculinity in this post so let's avoid bringing "privilege" into it.)

It goes back to the Men Tough/Women Weak thing. Both folks in that exchange are saying it. Women can't do it because they're weak. Men must do it 'cause they're strong. It is bullshit and neither are correct. However! However, we've got to look at where the power is. Remember the almost-exclusively male membership in the legislature? They have the power to make laws. It isn't the women's organizations saying women need strong men and forcing legislatures to make those laws. Hell, Occupied Deutschland just said these feminists are not making enough noise for change.

Why aren't these nameless feminist straw-organizations doing more advocacy, anyway?

there is next to no support from women for something that will take their freedom away

This is why. I mean, why the holy hell would an organization seeking to expand the rights of women advocate something that takes their freedom away? That goes against their whole deal. Look way back up at the OP, the very first quote. Is that something a women's advocacy group should want for women?

tl;dr Women don't have to sign up for the draft because society falsely believes women to be unfit for the task. Lawmakers are just following the trends of society; the male leadership unable or unwilling to to change draft laws. Feminist organizations who actually believe women are totally fit to serve don't want women to be forced into being drafted 'cause being drafted sucks. It makes one wonder: why are men's rights advocates trying to take women's freedom away (by insisting women get drafted) instead of pushing for more freedom for men (abolishing the draft)?

[Ayreonia]

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 am sorry but in what way is forcing women up on a pedestal privilege?

In the way that potentially saves them from bleeding out on a battlefield.

[The Rich Port]

I am sorry but in what way is forcing women up on a pedestal privilege?

In the way that potentially saves them from bleeding out on a battlefield.

... Well, multiple movements have been started where women have campaigned and explicitly demanded for the REMOVAL of that privilege.

[Farnhamia]

I am sorry but in what way is forcing women up on a pedestal privilege?

In the way that potentially saves them from bleeding out on a battlefield.

Hell, we bleed out every 28 days. You guys couldn't handle it.