Skip to comments.Women should be drafted
Posted on 02/17/2003 7:43:03 AM PST by GothmogEdited on 04/13/2004 2:09:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE PROSPECT of war with Iraq has sparked a discussion of the possibility of bringing back military conscription. So far, such a move seems unlikely; the only calls for a reinstatement of the draft have come from war opponents such as Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, who argues that war requires ''shared sacrifice'' (and believes that if a draft were in place, our government would be more reluctant to go to war).
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
But I think in the future anyone who argues for women to be included in combat forces should have to watch last week's (2/13) "Survivor" show. This season it's about the men vs. the women.
It's not a question chivalry, chauvanism, gender bias, etc. Most men can simply hack things better with a machete (and maybe some girl will help me spell machete, ha ha ha)
War is not democratic. Wars are fought to win/survive/achieve.
Women are not physically created equal to men. Men are, by nature, outfitted to be hunters and warriors. Women are, by nature, outfitted to be mothers, gatherers and care-givers. You can't buck nature.
While in battle, women are IN THE WAY OF THE IMPARRATIVE TASK--BY THE NATURES OF THE SEXES. Women's cycles are not conducive to effeciency. Men behave differently when women are involved: Protective AND competative. By nature, women are not SINGLE MINDED. By nature, women nurture.
There are exceptions to the rules; but YOU CAN'T BUCK NATURE.
I agree. As quoted in Gordon Liddy's book, "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country". The reason for our military is "to project power by locating, engaging and killing the enemy, destroying all the assets that enable him to resist further and then occupying and holding his territory."
Having women involved in that mission can only lead to men doing dumb things.
But here is my opinion anyway. Due to the successful efforts of feminists and those like-minded, we have already integrated women into our military and have expended enormous sums of taxpayer dollars to do so. Case in point, when I was in the Marine Corps in 1981-85, many of the male Marines were moved to open squadbays so that luxurious (to our point of view) enlisted barracks could be built for all the women Marines who were flooding the Corps at the time. Not only were the existing male barracks converted for use by women (the way they were weren't good enough) but brand new state-of-the-art barracks were built for them. Unlike the men, who often had to live in 80-men open squadbays, the women demanded and received brand new quarters with semi-private (or private) rooms and private bathrooms. For those who do not understand what a squadbay is, let me explain. A squadbay is a WW2-era barracks, it is a long building with a common head (latrine) in the middle and on each side, 40 men sleep and live jowl-to-jowl on bunk beds, each Marine getting a footlocker and a wall-locker to store his gear and possessions. It is okay for boot camp but once you get out in the real Corps, it's a real drag. You get your drunks coming in at 2 in the morning, bouncing off the walls and whooping it up, you deal with an endless stream of farts, coughs, and whatever else. Most of us would just strap on headphones and try to tune everything out.
Anyway, enough of the whining, but that was my experience. I should also note that women never had to do the infamous "work details" that male Marines were made to do such as mess duty, guard duty or just plain scut work like painting or mowing the grass. Instead, work details for women consisted of either doing clerical work indoors or, believe it or not, supervising the male work details. So you would have women Marines ordering male Marines around doing things that they never would have been made to do themselves.
But nevertheless, women were integrated into the armed services for better or worse. The deed is done and there is no turning back the clock now. Actually women have proved themselves to be quite useful in the military, freeing up the men for combat duty, the one military function that women are still not asked to perform (and it appears that even the most ardent feminists do not want combat duty for women).
So when we talk of a military draft for women, we are not talking about sending women into combat. Let's get that issue off the table right now. We are merely talking about drafting women into the military to assume the roles that they have already been performing, and apparently performing well, for the past two or three decades. Why shouldn't we draft women as well as men?
I just believe that drafting them (think of numbers/duties/MOS outcomes) is stupid and COUNTER-productive.
Are women capable of serving in a ground combat unit, in your opinion? Women were serving in support positions in the military long before the word "feminist" was in the dictionary, so that's a given.
Your quote said nothing about a draft.
Anyway, if they are drafted, they won't go into any MOS that can't go into if they volunteer.
If those MOSs are full, its not like they will be putting them in combat.
Some are, but that's a whole different can of worms.
Women were serving in support positions in the military long before the word "feminist" was in the dictionary, so that's a given.
True, but the poster I was replying to stated "women should not be in the military", not "women should not be in combat", so it's not a given.
I wanted clarification.
If VMI and the Citadel are prohibited under Federal law from having all-male schools, then it seems obvious to me that Uncle Sam cannot have an all-male draft registration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.