General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould women be drafted into the military?
If there draft is reinstated, should women be drafted?
(I know it's not being reinstated.)
47 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
40 (85%) |
|
No | |
5 (11%) |
|
Not Sure | |
0 (0%) |
|
Other | |
2 (4%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Aerows
(39,961 posts)we should have the best men and women our nation has to offer on the sacrificial altar.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)it should be to defend this nation from a threat and to protect her people, not to maintain a global empire.
elleng
(131,370 posts)with few if any exemptions so EVERYONE, including members of congress and the 1%, will have skin in the 'game' when they send our/their children off to war.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just to justify the enormous resources spent on it.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)So Americans would pay more attention to where we are sending troops and why. That could make needless wars less likely. We are not talking about mandatory service, but a draft when we declare war.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)Is that if a war is unjustified the people will figure it out eventually. If they have skin in the game (their kids) they figure it out quicker and do something about it. Professional (volunteer) army's make it easy for governments to have wars of choice. If we still had a draft, I doubt that Afghanistan or Iraq would have gone on as long as they did.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Response to SteveG (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And we had to have riots in the streets and soldiers firing on citizens before the government backed down.
The draft just provides more soldiers cheaper. Arguably in the permanent recession of the 21st century a de-facto draft exists anyway, as the military has no shortage of "volunteers" and is effectively an employer of last resort, a government jobs program.
If we still had a draft, I doubt that Afghanistan or Iraq would have gone on as long as they did.
Doubt all you want, but you have no evidence. Besides ending the draft the government learned two other lessons from Vietnam:
1. control the media message.
2. limit casualties.
They have another lesson learned ready to go if needed: stop domestic unrest before it gets started.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I'm an ex-draftee (Vietnam), and I can tell you it's a lot harder to keep having wars when most of your lower-echelon forces are not there by choice. That puts a definite twist in the knickers of society, in a way that we haven't seen since the 'Nam era.
hack89
(39,171 posts)There will be no shortage of volunteers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Especially among the children of upper-class white people. That's why the draft was used there, and that's why the draft over-represented working-class kids of all races(including a disproportionate number of Latinos, African-Americans and Native Americans).
hack89
(39,171 posts)Those from well to do areas had a slightly higher chance of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers (the two most dangerous jobs in VN).
86% of the dead were white. 12.5% were black.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)were draftees. Only the officers and senior NCO'S were volunteers.
Edited to add--
I don't dispute your numbers; however, many of the enlistees did so in order to exchange an extra year of duty for a preferred (read: "safer" specialty, or MOS. It was a lot better to be a supply clerk at Cam Ranh Bay than a rifleman in the Central Highlands.
gladium et scutum
(809 posts)primary concern on relying on the draft instead of the Reserve and Guard was to mollify the upper-class white people. He preferred sending Latinos, African-Americans and Native Americans to Viet-Nam?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...but by their deeds shall ye know them.
gladium et scutum
(809 posts)that was his motivation. But you are correct in the way it appears.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Some parts of the services need draftees. Note during Nam many Enlistee's did so to have some level of choice in where/how they served as opposed to being drafted and told.
hack89
(39,171 posts)nuclear powers are not going to fight a multi-year conventional war. How do you stop the loser from going nuclear?
We are the dominant military power on the earth - we don't a larger military. Especially one filled with poorly trained unwilling draftees.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)A lot of people are now 40 or more who escaped the last draft, so even they should be in on it - maybe like the National Guard in the US/ floods, etc., or training people in some specialty, health services, etc....
Employers would have to go along with losing men/women for a couple of years......
What a great way to unify the country. No war could last with folks who want to get back home fighting it from every direction...
Even us old people could find someway to help - read or write letters or emails, wrap packages to offspring and assist handicapped people, stuff like that.
rainbobryte
(43 posts)...World War 2.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)People were proud to be part of it....those not called ran in to sign up, even if too young, too old, or 4F....
rainbobryte
(43 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,816 posts)Even the Chinese and Russians are moving away from it. Modern warfare requires skill, experience, and technical training, which can't be acquired in the year or two an average draftee spends in uniform.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I hope there aren't any more drafts, it seems like the well-connected always get out of them and everyone else gets screwed.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)The Equal Rights Amendment never got passed. That has to come first.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Amendments don't demand a human sacrifice.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)But nobody should support a draft unless and until there's an ERA.
stone space
(6,498 posts)It's never a good time.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)people to fight, yes, of course.
It might actually keep us from interfering
everywhere in military ways.
I doubt though that any Repug in Congress
would vote for this, because they love wars
too much, but only if it does not hurt them.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)1) the military doesn't want it. 2) govt has turned to private contractors instead. 3) a draft makes it more difficult to wage war, and the govt doesn't want that, nor does the MIC.
But yes, whatever national service is required of men should also be required of women.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stone space
(6,498 posts)It won't go down well with me at all.
Warpy
(111,437 posts)Until then, forget it guys. Safest years for childbirth are 18-26. Spending any of those years in the military is just plain stupid, counterproductive, and unhealthy.
Not to mention the double jeopardy of childbirth and war.
You guys seem to love the wars, you go fight them.
Some women will always volunteer. Leave the rest alone.
Warpy
(111,437 posts)Since they're spared the messy, painful and dangerous business of childbirth, they simply assume that it's effortless.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)"If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's the quote and Florynce Kennedy said it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florynce_Kennedy
stone space
(6,498 posts)And a sacrament that some men now want to force on women.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)have anything to do with whether or not someone is drafted? Obviously, if a woman is pregnant, she shouldn't be drafted but other than that, I see no reason why women shouldn't be drafted just like men.
I have two daughters and no sons, but my daughters are no more precious to me and to my ex-wife than sons are to their parents.
My preference would be no draft for anyone, but if there were to be a draft, my daughters should have to stand tall with their male friends and colleagues and face the same possibility of being drafted.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Or are you making that decision for them?
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)get back to me when his daughters are treated equally to their boy peers.
Oh, and let me know when you are fighting for women in the workplace, home, doctors office, etc., and not just a military draft.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)If this thread was about equal pay for women, I wouldn't tell you or anyone else to get back to me when women can be drafted. I would, however, discuss my views on women receiving equal pay (which is that they should, duhh) Do you know why I would discuss equal pay in that thread? You are correct, because that would be the topic of the thread in question. So in this thread, I, and others, discuss the topic women being drafted, because that's what this topic is about. For other discussions, we might try something like this https://www.google.com/search?q=equal+pay+for+women&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
https://www.google.com/search?q=gender+equality&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
Pretty cool, huh? You can actually have discussions about many different topics on here. So like you might have one topic that discusses one subject, and then another that discusses another subject. The best part is that you can keep various topics focused on a specific subject so that they don't end up all over the place. For example, I'm a huge supporter of gay rights, but it would be silly for me to assume that just because someone doesn't mention they support gay rights in a thread about a video with a kitten playing guitar, that it must mean that they don't care about gay rights.
But to address the points you're attempting to make. Would you apply the same logic to any minorities with regards to the draft? Non-whites often times face discrimination due to their skin color. Since they may be more likely not get a job, or get paid less, or receive other disadvantages such as education opportunities, should black, Latino, or any other non-white males also be excluded from the draft?
*I don't think there should be any draft regardless of gender, race, or pinky toe size.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The draft nothing more than legalized kidnapping and slavery.
Let the rich white men who want war go and fight those wars themselves.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And yes, my daughters are well aware of my opinion on this.
forsaken mortal
(112 posts)and men who are anti-war. Why paint with such a broad stroke? Your last sentence should apply to men as well, some men will volunteer, leave the rest alone.
Warpy
(111,437 posts)No draft, not in peacetime or during wars of corporate convenience, not unless we are being directly invaded, and then one would probably not be necessary.
However, the original question was whether a draft should apply to both sexes. I answered why it should not apply to women.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)maternal deaths, just under 800. Shockingly high. Same year, workplace fatalities, 4,400 of which over 90% were men. Men do the bulk of the most dangerous jobs in construction and food production. Then also in 'defense'.
If it's about the numbers, childbirth looks like a pretty good choice over fishing, mining, roofing, waging war, construction, demolition and refuse collection. Thousands a year, every year. Since forever.
I'd say construction and food production are so dangerous that the draft should not apply to men. Childbirth plenty dangerous and very vital, so the draft should not apply to women. This is why I've always opposed the draft. Life is risky enough without it. No matter who you are.
Response to forsaken mortal (Reply #35)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TM99
(8,352 posts)Women between those ages should forget college and professional career development, stay home, and produce babies.
That will keep them safe and peaceful.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)in a warzone.
wait....what?
you want equality. You get it all. If men are to be drafted again, damn skippy, women should be as well.
In this day and age, siblings, parents, and husbands can raise a woman's child for her while she is off fighting for her country next to the men who have left their wives, children, and families behind.
If you want to start discussing the reality of biological determinism, well then 'equality' starts to erode real fast.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)(kidding, kind of)
You say, if women want equality, they get it all. How about we start with at least some, since we aren't considered equal, yet. Then, and only then can we move on to all.
And yes, anyone can raise a child, but not just anyone can give birth to a child. For instance, you can't.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If you are only capable of doing things that biology dictates then your 'equality' can only be based on that determinism.
In most ways, yes, women are far more equal than they have been in centuries. When it comes to war, women are now in the military full force. They are in numerous leadership positions hard earned. They have fought for the ability to join combat specialties including special forces even if only a few qualify. If they deserve that equality, then they deserve to be drafted as much as any man. Whether they can give birth to babies or not is truly irrelevant. Do all women give birth? Should all women during child bearing years be forced to do so since biology dictates. What about transgenders and lesbians? Should they be forced to pop out babies?
Yours is a 'cake and eat it too' argument. You want biological determinism when it suits you and freedom & equality as well. If equality is not to be based on our biological realities but rather our abilities, our ideas, our capabilities, and our choices, then absolutely, women should register for Selective Service like all men must do, and women should be drafted during any time of conscription. Period.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I don't want to see anyone drafted, and I'm not even sure why this topic is being asked because I don't believe anyone in power is considering bringing back the draft.
That said, women of child birthing age, who wish to have children, should absolutely be exempted. People die in war, and women are the ones who can help repopulate it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)However, if one is implemented, there is no reason whatsoever that women and men should not be equally drafted. We are over-populated as it is on this planet, so that is hardly a reason for exemption.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)and say the reason they are doing that is because "You got your rights now."
TM99
(8,352 posts)Sorry you have issues with men.
I am actually quite old fashioned when it comes to how I treat my S.O. with regards to opening doors, cooking for her, romancing her, etc. She and I are different and yet treat each other with great respect and honor. We support each other in our individual endeavors as well as those things that make our relationship so strong.
She has expressed no complaints over the decade we have been together, so your issues really don't affect me in the least.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Just sayin'.
TM99
(8,352 posts)with combat?
Wow!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html
(as of October 30, 2014)
U.S. Servicemember
Deaths
U.S. Department of
Defense Civilian
Deaths
U.S. Servicemembers
Wounded in Action
Operation Iraqi Freedoma 4,412 13 31,949
Operation New Dawnb 66 0 295
Operation Enduring Freedomc 2,,346 4 20,037
Operation Inherent Resolved 2 0 0
i do not know how valid these numbers are, and not into comparing who dies more, just a soft comparison. but, i am thinking you do not get how many women die in birth, so this is just a rough idea.
i rounded it 7000 deaths in 14 yrs and got 500 deaths a year. now, without argument at all, i am sure that is not over all military death. but, like i said, i am not about comparing the deaths of women giving birth to people (not all men, though mostly) dying in military. just a general idea.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)risks of death during and shortly after giving birth are staggeringly low. Less than 300,000 in 2013 recorded world wide. So no giving birth is not an equivalent risk of danger as going into combat. But you know this.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)The first one I carried twins. My son, born eight minutes after my daughter, became detached from his placenta, was delivered breached, and nearly died.
3 days after my second modern childbirth, I hemorrhaged and nearly died. Yes, I'm very thankful for modern medicine, and that I live near excellent medical facilities, and that I have insurance that covered me, but neither of my experiences were easy. Like combat, of course not, but not no big deal either.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and most women do not in modern times. Women who give birth to not in general suffer from PTSD. I have not met a soldier, male or female, yet who has been in combat who has not suffered or still suffers from PTSD in some shape or form. These just are not the same.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I experienced difficult labor and delivery.
Take my first one, for instance, I delivered twins, vaginally, at 40 weeks. That is historically normal. What wasn't normal was that I didn't have a C-section.
Most women do not carry multiple births full-term and not have a C-section in this day and age.
Why you wish to have child bearing women to suffer from PTSD because young men do, is beyond me. I don't get your logic.
I don't like war, I don't want anyone to be subjected to war, but it's insane to think that child bearing aged women, should serve, just because you think that's fair.
And for what it's worth, a very close friend of mine was not only sent to NY to search the rubble for remains, he was also sent to Iraq. And yes, he has PTSD of some sorts because of it, anxiety, depression, and I know he would find your argument of drafting women for fairness absolutely ridiculous.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You assume I want anyone to do so. I do not. I do not want the draft.
However, it is not just that only young men in this day and age are expendable psychologically and physically during times of war. Things have changed. There are no longer any solid reasons in this progressive age for women and men, if a draft is to be re-instated, to not have to both deal with its tragic reality.
Equality is equality unless it is not. So many seem to want to have it only with the good shit and never the bad. Some men choose to stay in the military. Others during conflicts like Vietnam did not. They had zero choice. Women have clamored for the ability to rise in the ranks and to enter combat specialties. Some choose to make the military there career. But during a time of war, only the men are the ones forced to whether or not they desire to do so. That is not just. You and your friend may find it ridiculous. So be it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the battle women have faced, as you well know.... is not women saying they should not serve, but men saying women are not capable.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)None of the rationales that were used by the Supreme Court in 1980 to establish that gender discrimination is legal (and that men aren't entitled to equal protection) hold true today.
You'd think that the most foundational court ruling that institutional sex discrimination is legal would be challenged by feminist groups.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)How interesting...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so? men have no desire to right their wrong done unto them? they only insist that women stop dealing with our issues as rapes are allowed, congress tell us to put an aspirin between our knees while making law to stick a plastic thing up the vagina for the only reason to cause pain and humiliation in a legal medical procedure, while listening to rush cal our college students sluts and whores and tell them to video their sex so men can jack off too......
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)But forcing women to get pregnant and have children is not, and we routinely criticize Republicans for it.
I'm not sure how folks hold both ideas in their heads simultaneously.
It would make mine explode.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)I have counseled all my daughters to wait until they are older and settled to have a child. Just how many feminists on this board really think it's a good idea for young women to have babies when they are that young? Get settled. Get your career going. I hope none wait until they develop fertility problems, but I sure hope they wait until they are at least a couple of years out of college!
I voted "yes" but I don't believe in lowering standards for any position in the military just to include women. However, if women want equality, we have to be willing to be drafted according to our abilities - whether that is flying a fighter jet or cleaning the latrine.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I often wondered why it was that women never had to fear being drafted.
I know I sure wouldn't have wanted my dear mother to have been drafted. Maybe other sons felt the same?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Yes?
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)If children are involved one parent should be exempt. Doesn't matter which one or if it's 2 dads or 2 moms one of them should be able to stay home.
I think we should raise the draft age to start over 65. This way we won't have to pay SS for us old slackers.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I can just see an 85 year old lady driving tanks
and lifting those anti aircraft guns. Man, would that
be fun!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)This old granny probably couldn't pass the physical exam, much less fire a gun from a tank.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Ruling classes and governments should make their nations so good that more people want to defend them.
That doesn't answer your question, but since we don't have one now, we don't need to be talking about who gets picked.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The horse, the fox, I say we draft the calf and cow! Sign up a canary and a cougar! Let the lions sign on the doted line! X works!
I think the eagle should be wearing smart bomb laser guided freedom missiles! I think it selfish to deny the other God fearing, born in America, animals to participate in human kinds favorite activity!
Laser guided shark wielding gorillas! Even the small critters like cats, would make excellent sappers! Plus cats have great ninja potential!
Er yeah draft the FUCK out of everyone! Everything! Trees can stand, arm them with cluster bomb guided laser fists. Everyone remembers Lord of the Rings! Just like that except with Bazookas!
You know what to hell with that, we need to get Monsanto to start working on a Grute tree warrior ASAP!
Let's see...what did I leave out...Pit Bulls! Olive Garden genetically modified Eggplants cluster bomb with a 5 layer detonator!
POW! BAM!
Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)TY SIR.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Iggo
(47,591 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,498 posts)Bank on it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Or for other issues such as equal pay, equal rights, etc., as well?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)DEMTough
(90 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If we a) know what equality is and b) support it, then the answer is obvious.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Shared sacrifice.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)What about young people with health problems that make them ineligible to serve? Like, say, menstrual cramps, which are exclusive to women?? Are they going to give a young woman three or four days off thirteen times a year? There are 13 lunar months in a year.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and other countries have fewer restrictions on their roles and universal service, such as Israel. How do they handle it.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I don't know how they would handle a periodic disability.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Uhm, stupid. First off, menstral symptoms vary a lot, and are easily treated in most women with hormonal birth control or certain other medications that can control the symptoms. In addition, symptoms so severe as to disable a woman temporarily are rare, so can be dealt with on a case by case basis. This isn't an argument against universal registration.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)At least the ones with severe cramps. Rare, huh? If you're the woman with the severe cramps, statistics don't matter.
Like anything else that happens. If it's rare, and you are the one that gets it, statistics don't matter.
Menopause can be the best thing about getting older.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that women should have their career opportunities limited.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I was referring to particular cases of bad health.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to draft sick people? Hell, my dad, if he wasn't just a shy too young for the draft, didn't qualify to be drafted, he had a crooked eye from a childhood injury and was born with a tail. Do you honestly think that the military would want people who can't function due to severe symptoms of any condition to join or be drafted?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.
Newt Gingrich - 1995
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Skittles
(153,298 posts)no
no one should be drafted
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
John Poet This message was self-deleted by its author.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)That would create more issues then it fixes.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)Draft is involuntary servitude (slavery) and should not be applied against any category of people -- not by gender, not by age, not by financial status, not by educational status, not by marital status.
So what's up with the multiple draft questions showing up on DU? Is there an effort to try to gin up support for a draft? How many different ways is the question going to be asked? Know this: to all draft questions I say the same thing: Absolutely NO DRAFT.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's the same thing to get your daughter home in a flag-draped coffin as it is to get your son that way.
And if we do have it, mandate front-line service for the children of any presidential children of military age, all children of members of Congress, and all children of the judiciary(excluding only those who publicly express opposition to the war in question and seek conscientious objector status).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)legally adults. And you are saying that if some 24 year old has a parent who is in Congress or a judge should be forced into service if their parent does not oppose the war?
Many people could point out to you that many adults do not at all agree with their parents, nor the reverse. You are saying that some asshole could disown their gay kids, then later you'd have the gay kids rounded up and punished because their bigoted parent who hates them is for the war.
Utterly chilling right wing concept you have there. Sins of the fathers must be visited upon the sons.
yuiyoshida
(41,871 posts)I for one would not like to go.. why do we need to go to war anyway? We are protecting some Corporations oil wells in the middle east? We are sticking our nose into somewhere it doesn't belong, okay...if Kim Jong Il lobbed nukes at us, than..yeah.. lets go take him out.. but come on, why do we need to go fight for some Corporation's interest some where?
djean111
(14,255 posts)But you are right.
More and more, it seems to me that the real business of the USA, now that manufacturing has fled and so many good jobs have been outsourced/H-1B'd - is war.
Heh, somewhere someone will look at a poll like this and say hey! Americans are for war! And think everybody should go!
It is extremely naive to think a draft and wars will unify the country and stop wars. No, the police have been duly militarized, weapons and training, and demonstrators will be swiftly dealt with. The media won't cover stuff they are told not to cover.
The CIA is being real up front about expanding so they can monitor everything, all the time, all over the world. Or universe, as they put it. Remember how the Occupy people were herded, arrested, tear-gassed, raided, etc? That was just practice. I doubt anti-war demonstrators will affect anything but arrest rates and more overtime. Sad, but, IMO, true.
Voting against war? With the current hawks-in-waiting? Don't think that will have any effect for years. If at all.
We will just keep getting the Russia boogeyman stories and clips of beheadings. Well, not the beheadings carried out by the Saudis, of course, Those, evidently, are GOOD ones.
So, back to your post - evidently "we" are going to keep on sticking our nose in where it does not belong, in the name of peace and Democracy.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)If they using the draft to fill slots in transportation, military police, EOD, medic, 92G (in deployment, with all the migrant labor cooking the food they just sit on their thumbs or used for other tasks).
This is basically a general question so my general answer is Yes. Regarding combat MOS or more specific ones like 11B they already aren't allowed but if they're using the draft to fill coed MOS, it is inherently unfair.
Over danger or risking the danger to women, 88M & the MOS which is basically a medical first responder on the battlefield rank among the male only MOS which the top 10-15 most dangerous MOS are made up of.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Pass the ERA, then yes, absolutely.
No ERA, no draft.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)And my grandchildren as well.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We're already at the economic whims of our plutocratic overlords. They shouldn't also have the right to demand we get shot at for their enrichment. Bad enough they're killing us off in so many other ways.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You can forget about the ERA if this bothers you.
You can't cherry pick what parts of society you want equality in. It don't work that way.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no.
go after the right people, when accusing. especially as you tie it to the ERA
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)(although there are a few openly feminist people here who have said no...even one using the "dangers of childbirth" as an excuse).
And it is sort of tied to the ERA already since the draft is the main excuse people used back in the 80s for not wanting to pass that amendment.
It only makes sense, if you want a truly equal society, that if there were ever another military draft to include both men and women. Not doing so and finding excuses for not doing so only sets up the situation for women to continue to be infantized and viewed as weak and needing protection.
Norway and Israel already conscript women (along with men). They have certain exclusions of course. And military isn't the only way to fill the obligation in case of conscientious objectors. But I wouldnt be opposed to something like that here.
Plus as others said, if you got more skin in the game, including rich kids and women, the politicians in Washington would be less likely to want to engage in any war. Right now it is too easy to go to war. You got a volunteer military with mostly men, and a high number of minority men. And most are middle or lower class. Meanwhile the main policymakers in Washington are almost entirely upper class.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not even kinda tricky of ignoring fact and once again, presenting a false claim
since this was the first comment you made, that i felt i had to readdress, i read no further in your post. i am not here to reassemble a whole post of wrong.
it is not feminist that deny women the right to serve, and tying ERA into that is bullshit.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)There are people right here on this thread who are saying no to women serving and claim to be feminists.
Why aren't you giving them hell?
I've never said no to women serving in combat. So I don't know why the hell you are attacking me for. If someone really has a problem with women serving or being drafted, why would they support ERA then? If you pass ERA, you can't cherry pick things to be equal in. That's the point I was making.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)tying it into ERA (and do you support ERA?) is BULLSHIT!
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I'm not going to play your word games. If you want to fight someone, fight with the feminists on this thread who say women shouldn't serve.
Have a nice day.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)fights for women to serve.
your position in each post is blaming feminists, and that is incorrect.
stone space
(6,498 posts)It's about whether or not women should be kidnapped and forced to kill and die against their will by others who want to tell women how to live their lives, rather than letting women decide on their own how to live their lives.
The real question here is whether or not we trust women enough to make their own decisions.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i did not share my opinion about the OP.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this battle. i have too many times in the past. i also did not think it prudent to allow certain accusations toward feminists to stand without challenge. that is why i addressed what i did in this OP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6331228
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6331281
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)or National Guard or Coast Guard or, in some capacity to help with our infrastructure.
I do not think anyone should be forced to go overseas to fight in some war that somehow our politicians have managed to justify/rationalize.
But, I am not opposed to 18-20 y/o doing some type of Civil Service no matter the gender.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that time demanded elsewhere takes them into their 30's before they are providing for themselves. ideally, i think it is a great idea. not seeing it practically.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i think it would be excellent in giving, and creating a better whole for all of us. now that oldest is in school, looking at 4 yrs in university and then another three for advanced degree, that takes him to 26, 27.... before he is able to start providing for himself.
i am telling him after the first 4 yrs, he is going to have to start paying for his own damn insurance.
university is so expensive. he got an athletic and academic scholarship. the athletic scholarship that has significantly cut costs, is allowing him to go to that school. otherwise we could not afford. it is also taking up as much time as any full time job would be. it seems like the kids are getting much older before us adults can cut the financial cord.
add two years, .... and wow. i have to retire in a decade and half.
and i have another to put thru in a couple more years.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Tricare (current military) insurance.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)making it thru college. man... it is pure momentum of getting it done, to continue on with college. have two years out of academics, and it makes it that much harder, i feel.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)of educating our young.
IIRC, Israel has mandatory male/female two year service. I am NOT saying that we should do EXACTLY like Israel, mind you but, I do think Good Citizens should be CIVIC minded. I also don't think our high school/college system is the best way for our young people in helping them determine what is best profession for their future.
Trade Schools used to be more prevalent and should also be considered as an honorable way to make a living.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a lot of kids for different reasons should not go to college. and there absolutely should/must be other options for these kids. one being peace corp type, military, and trade schools.
my youngest, from what i see and know, regardless how smart and his desires.... may not be one to go the college route. for his specific reasons.
same with me. lol
and my niece.
not indicative of abilities, smarts, or other.... just needs to be applied in other areas, not college.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)always a pleasure, sea
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)For men, being prepared to fight isn't a right, it's an obligation. Equality would require an equal obligation.
Feminist organizations don't support draft registration for women, so they don't support equality. QED.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kcr
(15,326 posts)It sure is funny how so many want to ignore equality until these ridiculous never happen in a million years hypothetical draft scenarios come up. Then they're all about equality. Hell yes women should be forced to go get blown up in war, too! Fair's fair!
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)If you just mean the draft than ignore but I can take your post another way as well.
I know regarding infantry the active duty garrison training is a notable hardship. Their PT is more challenging than a typical regular army unit. A lot of FTRs & constant drilling, practicing, & training. A lot of ruck-marches and it seemed pretty universal there was nothing in the entire basic training that hurt your body after 10 miles of that. Infantry does it further with more gear. I'd actually support more woman in these MOS, the differences in gender regarding sleeping & showering can be worked out if they can maintain & certainly women are capable or certainly believe boxers & runners certainly can, it would also cut back on all the misogyny which would inevitable lead to with the group dynamics & an all-males club with a frat house style group personality that also think they are the shit -- not all but many who were 11B basically felt that since they were infantry, they were better than the rest of the people in the military.
eridani
(51,907 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...mandatory pregnancy and childbirth for women?
If not, why not?
Shouldn't the government be telling our daughters how to live their lives in every way possible?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)What does one have to do with the other?
stone space
(6,498 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)is not telling them how to live their lives, anymore than it's telling the men that would be drafted how to live their lives.
Daughters are no more precious to their families than sons.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Forcing women to kill and die against their will is not telling them how to live their lives?
Seriously?
What if they don't want to kill and die?
Isn't it their choice?
Who are you to decide for them?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)If men have to be drafted, i.e., forced to go to war, why shouldn't women as well?
As I've said previously, I'm against the draft. But if we ever have to use it again, women should be drafted just like men.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Aren't women smart enough to make these choices for themselves?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)...to kill and die against their will.
It's the question asked in the OP.
I favor letting women make their own choices and running their own lives.
But then, I have two daughters, and they don't really need anybody telling them what to do.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)The question was about the government telling women how to live their lives.
And even going so far as kidnapping women and forcing them to kill and die for it.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)because men are already subject to, using your hyperbole, being kidnapped and forced to kill and die.
Being against the draft for everyone is a valid position, and one that I hold as well. But you have yet to give a reason why, should the draft be reinstituted, it would be OK for men to be drafted but not women.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It asks "If there (sic) draft is reinstated, should women be drafted? " (emphasis mine)
I oppose mandatory military service for anyone.
But I think that mandatory military service for everyone would be less bad than mandatory military service for men only (although still pretty bad).
I suspect many (possibly most, possibly nearly all?) of the people answer yes are in the same category.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I would tend to answer "no" to that question, just as tend to answer "no" to this question:
One can add all sorts of "if"s to the question, and I'll still be opposed to drafting women, just as I am opposed to raping men.
I don't really see how adding a few "if"s is going to change my response to either question.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)No-one should ever be conscripted. But if conscription were to be introduced, it should be gender-neutral.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the accused go to jail with NO trial?
i am sure your post is in absurdity, as well as mine.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Women get to be the only ones in charge of corporations as CEOs and on corporate boards. You know, to balance a historic wrong.
An only women senators, congressmen and presidents from now on. Until numbers are equal in history, to also balance that historic wrong.
And maybe we should burn a few men at the stake if they are suspected to be witches. To balance that particular nasty historic wrong.
And from now on, only women should get the vote, not men. Because it's time to balance a historic wrong.
Need I go on? Or has my post reached the point of ridiculousness your post started out with? (for any potential alerters - not advocating these things, just pointing out the ridiculousness in "HereSince1628"'s post.)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)We're in Nahnahland from the start...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Good way to stop all unnecessary wars.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)Now ask me if I believe in having a draft the first place
TBF
(32,139 posts)and not a second before.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)I'm anti-war, but without equal protection under the law, women shouldn't be drafted
TBF
(32,139 posts)but I would consider some type of required service for a year or two after high school if folks wanted that. Again after everyone acknowledges that we are all people (not just white land-owning males).
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I think this argument has to explain why women should be different than black men, Hispanic men, and Native Americans largely without equal civil rights and sadly, even Japanese men in internment camps who were conscripted in WWII and later
Blacks Hispanics and Native Americans by and large didn't organize resistance to the draft leveraged on other goals.
Resistance to conscription by Japanese men in internment camps offering cooperation for freedom of their families led to felony convictions and imprisonment.
I'm sure that some argument along the lines of misdeeds of the past need not be models for the future would work.
TBF
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)
will have to make that argument for you. Going way back to the founding (if your user name is indicative our families came here around the same time!) only white, male landowners were guaranteed full rights. So if they want to fight it's on them.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Are the Democrats taking Charlie Rangel's 2003 draft bill out of the mothballs?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)AwakeAtLast
(14,134 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)If the draft is reinstated, should there be a revolution?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I come from a military family and one family member believes everyone, males and females, should have to serve a full 4 years before going to college. We disagree on that vehemently. She was a WAC. If rape happened in the military back then, I doubt it was as widespread as it is now. There is no fucking way I could say I think women should be drafted. We wouldn't be allowed to fight, just do bullshit tasks, and get raped by other soldiers and commanding officers. And none of them would ever get convicted even if they wasted the time to have one of those sham military trials. No, thanks, but no thanks. I don't believe in the draft to begin with, but I REALLY would not ever say women should be subjected to that kind of bullshit. Been raped, done that, don't want to go through it again no matter how much the local government run county mental health "official counselor for gay people" of Richmond County, North Carolina, thinks I need to "get right with God." I wish the internet had been around back then. I got raped and that was the extent of my therapy. I wish they guy had killed me instead. At least there is some common human respect in being murdered. Being raped is being degraded then being degraded again when you try to get the authorities to help then feeling nothing but pain from it for the rest of your life. There is no way I would vote to see any woman go through that.
So, hell no, I won't even consider the male/female "equality" aspect of your question until they stop raping women and getting away with it in the military. Even though I grew up in a military family, I fear soldiers nowadays. Hell no, women should not be drafted, but then again, I don't think men ever should have been either. But anyone who spouts off at the mouth about how we "need" to go to war should have to put up or shut up. THOSE are the ones who should be drafted and ONLY those people should be drafted, regardless of gender or anything else. Otherwise, keep it volunteer for those who want to do it.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)You are perfectly right on this. Very excellent post.
Thank you and I agree. AS WOMEN - HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)mentality that is what happens in war.... meh.
so you are right. that is a HUGE reason why it is a big NO!!
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)It was a show on tv (msnbc I THINK) but I don't remember which show. He was asked if there should be a draft. He said NO. Years ago when we had the draft, we pulled in a bunch of guys, trained them to shoot and a few other things, and sent them off to the infantry. Today, the training is much more extensive. They have top learn a lot of technology to operate the new equipment in all areas of our military, and 6 weeks won't make it.
I recommend something else to get all young people to contribute. Something like mandatory community service, or foreign service of some kind, and yes ALL young people should have to serve in one of those areas, both male & female.
I really like his idea. I don't know if community service is the right area, but something like that, that would force kids of SLL social levels to contribute.
Joe Magarac
(297 posts)What is it with some Democrats and a love for imposing involuntary servitude?
I'm too old to be drafted this time, but I would definitely aid others to resist the draft.
No matter who was president. No matter what the cause.
kcr
(15,326 posts)I'm not surprised at the lopsided results because of the tendency to want to be fair. It does seem fair on the face of it. Well, women want equality, right? So, doesn't that then mean they should be drafted, too, in the event of one?
No, and here's why. For one thing, it assumes that equality has been reached and men and women are the same. There are all kinds of reasonable arguments to be made how this isn't so. The fact that women overwhelmingly still tend to be the primary caregivers in their families for childcare. They tend to be the caregivers when a family member falls ill as well. Aside from the issues with dependency, this tends to take a toll financially. I'm not saying men never act in this capacity, but as a group women are still overwhelmingly affected more. These are burdens that significantly impact women far more than men and a draft would further burden women and their dependents. Women are also not as physically strong. This is simply a fact. And then there are the issues of rape in the military. No way it's right to add to those numbers by force.
I'm against the draft in either case, but it is simply not factual to claim it would be equitable and fair to enact a draft on both men and women. A draft would not impact both men and women the same.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)If the draft is reinstated, should men be drafted?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026335902
Lancero
(3,018 posts)...Is to ask if women should be susceptible to the draft as well.
Main reason they give that they shouldn't? It's to dangerous, women can't handle it.
Sometimes followed by 'shouldn't waste safest birthing years'.
What's interesting is that the danger argument can be applied to quite a few activities, and other jobs, while the second can be applied to any woman working towards a lifelong career.