Women & the draft

[*Lulu*]

I abhor the draft. I mean serious hate. If our government can not drum up enough support for a cause they feel just enough to send people to risk their lives, to where people would voluntarily enlist (like WWII) to support said cause, they need to seriously reexamine their case and perhaps rethink war being the answer. The idea that they're talking about expanding a draft rather than eliminating the possibility of it makes me think they have some sick plan to mire us somewhere we don't want to voluntarily be.

Conscription or the draft were a part of every major conflict in US history until 1970.

 

We manage to mire ourselves in conflict with or without an all volunteer military force.

[Amira]

I wish the group were hidden! I'm one who would rather pretend it didn't exist as I like this board being non-political. Does anyone know if there's a way to "Ignore" it and not see it at all?

 

I think I might have found the setting to keep people who aren't members of the group from seeing posts. Please let me know if you see new posts. I'm sorry it took me so long to figure it out- it's not very obvious how to fix it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't like the concept for men or women, so no I'm not happy about this.

 

 

[creekland]

I think I might have found the setting to keep people who aren't members of the group from seeing posts. Please let me know if you see new posts. I'm sorry it took me so long to figure it out- it's not very obvious how to fix it.

 

It seems to have worked.  I just went through the last 14 hours of "View New Content" and didn't see one, so as long as there's been a post within that time period, it seems to work.  I had been avoiding that button otherwise.  Politics - esp this year - turns me off and I like some respites from it.

 

Thanks.

[poppy]

I abhor the draft. I mean serious hate. If our government can not drum up enough support for a cause they feel just enough to send people to risk their lives, to where people would voluntarily enlist (like WWII) to support said cause, they need to seriously reexamine their case and perhaps rethink war being the answer. The idea that they're talking about expanding a draft rather than eliminating the possibility of it makes me think they have some sick plan to mire us somewhere we don't want to voluntarily be.

 

Most US soldiers in WWII were drafted.  In hindsight, we know it was a just and very worthy war.  At the time, they absolutely did not get enough men to sign up voluntarily to have a successful war effort.   (Keep in mind that no civilian in the US had any inkling about the Holocaust.... we just knew the German army and Japanese army were aggressively fighting our allies, and of course Pearl Harbor was bombed).

 

I am sick about the idea of anyone being drafted, but, I also do not want to live in a world where the US will lay down its weapons in any major international conflict that comes up.  I think it's a tough situation.

[Bluegoat]

So I'm making a gross generalization here, and please take no offense. However, the women I've observed who are in any position to be in combat roles, or toting around guns, or whatever, are in significantly better shape than your average woman. They work at it. The average woman is much weaker than the average man even if he doesn't work out. How would that happen? I'm thinking about my 18 year old self being put into the military, and how far I would have gotten carrying a gun through mud or whatever. Or does the military not worry about that--if you're healthy they'll force you to become as fit as they need? I have known miltsry couples where the wife had a baby and the husband was deployed, she was activated after baby was about 4 Mos old or something, and grandma raised the baby. They are in the miltary voluntarily but perhaps the pregnancy was unplanned?

 

There are probably more military jobs in non-combat roles than those that are in combat roles.  Fit women are are easily able to do pretty much all of that kind of work. 

 

When people are taken into military service, especially in a draft, there is some effort to put them into the work they are best suited for.  There are all kinds of people not best-fir for combat roles, or who have talents that would be wasted there.

 

Combat roles might always tend to be male-heavy - they also tend to be a job for the relativly young. 

[SKL]

I mentioned this in front of my 9yo daughters today.  One of them said "I'll make sure I'm not healthy enough to get drafted."  When I said I felt the policy was fair, my other kid said, "so you want me to go to war and get shot?"  I explained that it wasn't fair for only their boy classmates to be at risk.  One daughter agreed, the other thought it would be just fine to send the boys off to war.  :p  I do think it is pretty unlikely that they will actually be drafted into combat roles.

 

I am not opposed to the idea of my kids serving in the military.  I would much prefer for it to be their own choice.  But there are other civilized countries that require military service (not just registration), and I can see the point of it.

Edited June 16, 2016 by SKL

[SparklyUnicorn]

I mentioned this in front of my 9yo daughters today.  One of them said "I'll make sure I'm not healthy enough to get drafted."  When I said I felt the policy was fair, my other kid said, "so you want me to go to war and get shot?"  I explained that it wasn't fair for only their boy classmates to be at risk.  One daughter agreed, the other thought it would be just fine to send the boys off to war.  :p  I do think it is pretty unlikely that they will actually be drafted into combat roles.

 

I am not opposed to the idea of my kids serving in the military.  I would much prefer for it to be their own choice.  But there are other civilized countries that require military service (not just registration), and I can see the point of it.

 

I do agree it is not fair to only require males to do this.  If we want to be treated fairly, then it is only fair that we don't expect special treatment in this department.  But as I said before, I don't like this idea for males either. 

[Joules]

I do agree it is not fair to only require males to do this.  If we want to be treated fairly, then it is only fair that we don't expect special treatment in this department.  But as I said before, I don't like this idea for males either. 

 

I agree...what's good for the gander is good for the goose.  I'm against conscription also, so think that one advantage is that our legislature is much less likely to vote for a draft if their daughters are on the list!

[redsquirrel]

I agree...what's good for the gander is good for the goose.  I'm against conscription also, so think that one advantage is that our legislature is much less likely to vote for a draft if their daughters are on the list!

 

I'm not really sure why daughters vs sons would make a difference. I no more want to see a son conscripted than a daughter.  But I also have male and female members of of my family in the military, so I know both are equally capable of serving.  But I doubt lawmakers, who are mothers and fathers, love their sons any less than their daughters, or are any happier to send off their boys.

[poppy]

I'm not really sure why daughters vs sons would make a difference. I no more want to see a son conscripted than a daughter.  But I also have male and female members of of my family in the military, so I know both are equally capable of serving.  But I doubt lawmakers, who are mothers and fathers, love their sons any less than their daughters, or are any happier to send off their boys.

 

It is less politically tenable, for sure, and that's what's likely to have more impact.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree...what's good for the gander is good for the goose.  I'm against conscription also, so think that one advantage is that our legislature is much less likely to vote for a draft if their daughters are on the list!

 

Truth be told, what I think would be the fairest thing is for women to be given special treatment in some cases.  I'm not saying this to be silly.  In short I mean women have circumstances men do not that automatically put them at a disadvantage so treating them exactly the same is not 100% fair.  That's a whole other discussion.

 

But with the draft stuff, no that's crappy for men and women so if we are going to require that it is fair to require both to be on the list.

[Joules]

I'm not really sure why daughters vs sons would make a difference. I no more want to see a son conscripted than a daughter.  But I also have male and female members of of my family in the military, so I know both are equally capable of serving.  But I doubt lawmakers, who are mothers and fathers, love their sons any less than their daughters, or are any happier to send off their boys.

 

Hmmm, I guess I'm thinking of rather sexist good ole boy types who tell their sons to suck it up, but treat their daughters like porcelain.  Maybe my bias (or location) is showing a bit there.  :blushing:

[redsquirrel]

It is less politically tenable, for sure, and that's what's likely to have more impact.

 

I'm not sure it is.  This has been in the works for a while now. It has been discussed in the media, that I have seen anyway, for quite a while. It has been discussed in congress this past year.  There hasn't been any major blowback that I have seen. Women are not marching in the streets demanding it change. Parents are not organizing to stop it.

 

And, realistically, the chances of an actual draft being reinstalled are so small, that this is prob going to be a non-issue for quite a long time.  Selective Service, as we now know it, started in 1980. It has been around for 36 years.  The modern  draft was around from 1940-1973, or 33 years.  So we have been an all volunteer army longer than not.

[redsquirrel]

So I did a little digging and this is not finished by any means.

 

I found this, note it was written in May, so things have happened since it was written:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-unlikely-birth-and-unseemly-death-of-an-amendment-to-draft-americas-women/483599/

 

"During the House Armed Services Committee review of this year’s defense-funding bill late last month, California Republican Duncan Hunter introduced an amendment that would, for the first time ever, include women in the draft. It was a curiouser episode than it first appears: Hunter, a vocal opponent of women serving in combat, offered the amendment as a dare, confident that progressives on gender equality in the service were all talk. He voted against his own proposal.

 

In theory, anyway, this was a clever ploy. A 1981 Supreme Court decision had specifically linked women’s exemption from the draft to their ineligibility for combat, and with that ineligibility gone, Hunter saw the draft issue as a way to cut to the heart of the whole matter of women warriors. He gambled that liberals would balk when faced with the reality that women might have to, as he said, “rip the enemy’s throats and kill them for our nation.â€

 

The thing is, they didn’t. Hunter and his fellow opponents of women in combat were wrongfooted when it turned out that support for integration is more solid than they thought, and his “gotcha amendmentâ€â€”as one opponent on the committee termed it—passed. That, in theory, should have sent it and the larger bill on for a vote on the House floor. Meanwhile the same measure made it through the committee’s counterpart in the Senate, where it found surprisingly strong support, including from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

 

It was an accidental victory of a progressive cause in the deeply conservative political territory of military policy due to the overreach of an opponent of that very cause. Then the mixture of political logic and parliamentary procedure started to get surreal."

 

Then this from two days ago in the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/congress-women-military-draft.html?_r=0

 

The debate will now pit the Senate against the House, where the policy change has support but was not included in that chamber’s version of the bill.

 

and this

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/senate-passes-defense-bill-including-women-in-draft-224316

 

"Tuesday’s final vote on the Senate bill was enough to override a veto threat from the White House....."

 

 

so, this isn't a done deal.  It is in the senate bill, it is not in the congressional bill, and there have to be negotiations in reconciliation. And even then, there is a chance that the bill might be vetoed due to issues that have nothing to do with women in the  military.

 

So, this is not a done deal, by any means.  But, it also seems to have broad support and it isn't going to go away. If not now, then soon.
 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 It's crappy, so we shouldn't require it for men or women! 

 

IMO :)

 

Absolutely.

 

My kids are dual citizens and Germany used to require service of most males.  They did away with that.  So glad.