Women and the Draft

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by soezgg

3. Since the Armed Forces are way too big to admit personell on a case-by-case basis, they have to rely on generalizations and the little certainties in life:
a. Despite what you see on Alias, a 110 lb female cannot kick down a door.
b. Generally, women have less muscle mass and endurance. So when it comes to carrying a wounded Soldier 5 kilometers to a safe and open space for a MEDEVAC before you get shot by local rebels, I would put my money on a male.
c. There are all sorts of...well...medical issues that present themselves when women are in the field too long.

That definitely made me think things through again.
I believe points A and B would require a physical exam though. As long as those tests were passed than, I do not see that being a problem. I tend to not believe test results of any sort though, so I am still up in the air.


I am not sure if this is the right thing to do but:
I am going to take Mike?s side of the debate.
I follow his reasoning perfectly. I am not going to reiterate it; you can read it for yourself.

Soezgg is the first person to argue why women should not be allowed in the draft. It seems that most everybody who has posted has supported women in the draft. The debate about whether they should be there or not has been overlooked.

If I am wrong about this, it?s probably because I quickly skimmed many of the long posts between Bill and Mike.

[pryoplasm]

i havent yet read all the posts in the thread, but they are quite interesting...

anyways, as a person about to enter the military, let me first start out by saying i am completely against the draft. i believe that the current status of the US military with its voluntary status is a good thing, and helps both with morale (knowing the person next to you wants to be there, instead of being unsucessful in dodging the draft) and oveall quality for pretty much the same reason.

i have seen things and heard rumors about bush setting up things so a draft can go as soon as 2005 after elections. as for whether or not a woman should be drafted, why yes, i believe in womans equality, not for giving them special freedoms over other people (please dont even get me started on the rape shield laws in certain parts of the country)...but women can perfrom non-combatant jobs in the military, i believe some figure thats at least over 50% of the military doesnt have combatant jobs. not sure, but i'll check with my recruiter later.

anyways, those are my 2 cents with interest, and well, on a lighter note, no more school after tommorow, or today rather.....its sad to miss first, but i hope i can get back into the program someday.....

night everyone...

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by pryoplasm

anyways, as a person about to enter the military, let me first start out by saying i am completely against the draft. i believe that the current status of the US military with its voluntary status is a good thing, and helps both with morale (knowing the person next to you wants to be there, instead of being unsucessful in dodging the draft) and oveall quality for pretty much the same reason.

Good job pryoplasm. I definitly agree with you on that one. Those who wish to join the army do it on a voluntary basis (at this point in time) and I welcome the 2 people to this post who have mentioned being in the army/about to be in the army. It will be good to see the other side of this case argued. I like the morale point. However, just to move along discussion, in the state it is today, how do you feel that morale would be affected if women were drafted, and further placed into front lines? Do you think the "woman" question is a major issue for you as a future army person? I'm just interested. Thanks! - Genia

[MikeDubreuil]

Without question the morale of a volunteer army is much better than a drafted one. However, the whole point of the draft is that there are not enough volunteers in the military. We either expand the number of troops or lose.

I don't really buy the argument that if our administration was doing a good job then we would have an abundant supply of volunteers. I firmly believe in what the president is doing with the military; but you're not going to see me drop out of college and voluntarily enroll without a draft. The parents are paying for college now, who knows what happens 5 years down the road when I return from duty. I guess the argument could be made that I could just drop out of college then enroll and use the money I get from the goverment to finance my education. Military service isn't my calling in life, but that doesn't mean during desperate times I won't perform some type of military duty. Volunteer military service is for people who: need the money for college, is a familly tradition, or are bored with the working a minimum wage job after leaving high school.

Since I fall under none of those categories, I currently attend college.

[LauraN]

Originally Posted by soezgg

1. I am actually in the Army. So dont spew out some random trashy statements and try to pass them off as facts as if you know what you are talking about.

To what are you referring? Yes it's true that you would have more accurate information about the amry than we civilians, but you haven't told us what part of our information is incorrect.

Originally Posted by soezgg

3. Since the Armed Forces are way too big to admit personell on a case-by-case basis, they have to rely on generalizations and the little certainties in life:
a. Despite what you see on Alias, a 110 lb female cannot kick down a door.
b. Generally, women have less muscle mass and endurance. So when it comes to carrying a wounded Soldier 5 kilometers to a safe and open space for a MEDEVAC before you get shot by local rebels, I would put my money on a male.
c. There are all sorts of...well...medical issues that present themselves when women are in the field too long.

I may be wrong, so let me present the question to you, since you would know better than me: don't you need to pass a physical exam and meet certain physical requirements before serving? If this is true, generalizations are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by soexgg

Women, while generally smaller targets, and able to tolerate higher levels of pain, do not make good infantry. Feminists are smart so I think they would realize this. Dont you?

Why do you hold this view? Because of the size and strength differences? Even if it isn't true that physical requirements must be met, wouldn't the advantages and disadvantages balance each other out, at least somewhat? I'm not trying to disagree with you, necessarily, I'm just looking for a more explicit explanation of your views.

I personally do not see any reason to forbid women from serving in infantry. Yes there are physical differences, but generalizations apply to men as well as women. On a case-by-case basis, there are men who are weaker than women. How could you permit them to enter the army yet forbid a woman of similar characteristics based solely on gender? Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of America? That as long as an individual meets the requirements and possesses the necessary characteristics and skills, he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants?

[soezgg]

I'm not going to quote anyone, because I think that's dumb.

Little does everyone know, there are DIFFERENT STANDARDS for men and women in the military. While women have over 21 minutes to run two miles on their physical training test, men have only 15 minutes and 43 seconds. While women have to do only 17 pushups, men have to do 47. These are only examples, but as you can see, it would be easy for weak people of both sexes, but the weaker male is still much stronger than a weak female.

I am not going to trust that a woman will be able to have the physical strength and endurance to perform in situations where peoples lives are in danger.

This is exactly why women are not currently allowed to be in the Military Occupational Specialty of 11B (INFANTRY).

And again, on the DRAFT issue. The draft would only happen if the US needed millions of bullet sponges (infantry) so women are not needed.

[Yan Wang]

Edit: Many of the below things are the exact same as what soezgg said up above due to the fact I had chores and clicked the Reply button a good 15 min after I wrote the following...

Originally Posted by Ogre

Soezgg is the first person to argue why women should not be allowed in the draft. It seems that most everybody who has posted has supported women in the draft.

No, he argued that women should not serve in the infantry due to natural, physical differences (generally).

Originally Posted by LauraN

I may be wrong, so let me present the question to you, since you would know better than me: don't you need to pass a physical exam and meet certain physical requirements before serving? If this is true, generalizations are irrelevant.

You're definitely correct, Laura. But as Steve and I discussed on one of his trips back to Ithaca, the physics fitness tests (PT test for short) for men and women in the army are absolutely different in their standards of performance. Both tests require the person to do the same things, but the standards for females are set much lower than for men. Is this sexist or rather, is this based on general physical capability difference between a male and female (thus supporting soezgg's argument about carrying a wounded soldier for 5 km)? I googled the below site, which gives you information about the two tests. For the male test, I'd be fine for pushups/situps but I would have to run a lot more to get in shape for the 2-mile run. However, I could do the female test right now if you asked me to.

http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-20/Ch14.htm

Regarding my thoughts on the initial thread subject - I would fully support drafting both men and women. It is not fair to exclude one group when both are legally guranteed the same rights. As Mike argued, if you have the same rights, you have to be subjected to the same service. Nonetheless, as already mentioned, physical deficiencies may prevent infantry service - but that does not prevent working in other ways in the army. There are cooks (first non-combat position that came to mind - don't accuse me of being sexist), office workers, etc. But when I think about having women in infantry, I'm unsure. Even if the PT test standards were the same for both groups, I would have to think long and hard about including women in the fight.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by soezgg

I'm not going to quote anyone, because I think that's dumb.

Please refrain from comments that will discredit your personage, and have no relevance in light of the thread. The fact that you did not quote someone sends the message that you are not doing so, you have no need to state it in an immature way.

Originally Posted by soezgg

Little does everyone know, there are DIFFERENT STANDARDS for men and women in the military. While women have over 21 minutes to run two miles on their physical training test, men have only 15 minutes and 43 seconds. While women have to do only 17 pushups, men have to do 47. These are only examples, but as you can see, it would be easy for weak people of both sexes, but the weaker male is still much stronger than a weak female.

I know almost nothing about the army, but I knew that they have different requirements. Does the fact that women have more time to pass a physical test make them less apt at doing so? For example, in the sport of swimming Men's times are a bit speedier than women's, maybe a few seconds for state cuts. Just because a woman of a certain age group has more leeway as to how fast she goes, it does not mean she is incapable of obtaining a certain level. A woman that can pass a men's cut is stronger than a man who can't pass a men's cut, by your definition I'm assuming.

Originally Posted by soezgg

I am not going to trust that a woman will be able to have the physical strength and endurance to perform in situations where peoples lives are in danger.

If women felt they did not have the ability to save their friends lives, I do not think they would risk their friends lives by joining in the military. Purdue has a very active ROTC program that did a demonstration at a convocation I attended. A very small woman, maybe 5'3" (my heightish) was able to carry a much larger man for more than a good deal than I'd imagine of most individuals.

Originally Posted by soezgg

And again, on the DRAFT issue. The draft would only happen if the US needed millions of bullet sponges (infantry) so women are not needed.

Once again, I'd ask that you be more detailed in your explanations. According to recruiters that have come to our school and various events, a gigantic majority of army personel do not fight on front lines. With the many soldeirs that would be sent to a draft, the need for personel to take care of mechanical and health issues would increase expontentially. Yes, women are just as capable at these jobs. I'm sure even the people who don't want them on the front lines and wrote the laws can understand that by now due to the increase in female inlistment since we were permitted to enlist.

Please explain your posts carefully and be cordial, for everyone's sake. I have no intention of insulting you with this reply, I just wish to clarify some points that may counter your evidence. Please feel free to prove me wrong, I'd welcome it.

[pryoplasm]

Originally Posted by LauraN
I may be wrong, so let me present the question to you, since you would know better than me: don't you need to pass a physical exam and meet certain physical requirements before serving? If this is true, generalizations are irrelevant

to quickly answer that, yes there is a physical, and you must meet certain requirements, but pretty much if you can walk to the MEPS building, you are going to pass the physical...

and as for women in the infantry, i personally dont know any women qualified to go in, but if they could, i would welcome the day.

but to be fair, there are males who do not qualify for infantry duty as well. and besides, not everyone registered for the draft get in, some arent fit enough, or have other ways of getting out....

that, and a quick clarification, i am going into the military, but not Army, im going into the Air Force

[Adam Y.]

It seems that for the purposes of defending your conclusion, defending one's freedom can only occur through the use of violence - taking up arms against those who are perceived to be a physical threat to the safety of our borders. This, oddly enough, seems somewhat inconsistent with your fervent assurance that the United States doesn't "ignore oppressive dictators" in a previous thread, unless of course you meant simply that we don't ignore oppressive dictators that threaten our physical or economic well-being. The United States ignored the oppression of non-Aryans by Adolf Hitler for eight years before entering World War II after the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Well actually if I remeber correctly not everyone had that same opinion. Rosevelt actually did want to go to war though the opinion was negative during that time.

And again, on the DRAFT issue. The draft would only happen if the US needed millions of bullet sponges (infantry) so women are not needed.

Nope. It almost happened during the 90's because they needed doctors and nurses. It may happen again because they need translators if I remeber correctly.

I don’t see this as a question that requires an answer. At this point in time registering for the draft isn’t a necessary precondition for voting if you’re a man. Yes, we can be punished with a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison, but we do not lose our right to vote.

Ummm..... I think you do if you get sent to jail. I forgot which crimes though. Can anyone help??

Back on topic, in our world violence solves everything (just ask the people of Carthage, Constantinople, and Hiroshima). And unfortunately, it always will.

That's not true. Ghandi drove the British out with nonviolent means. King fought for racism without fighting. Im hoping the feminist movement was also nonviolent.(One part of history I never studied)

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Ummm..... I think you do if you get sent to jail. I forgot which crimes though. Can anyone help??

I'll help you. If you live in certain states you are not allowed to vote if you have been convicted of a felony. California does not have such a law. I'm in the clear .

[soezgg]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Well actually if I remeber correctly not everyone had that same opinion. Rosevelt actually did want to go to war though the opinion was negative during that time.
Nope. It almost happened during the 90's because they needed doctors and nurses. It may happen again because they need translators if I remeber correctly.
Ummm..... I think you do if you get sent to jail. I forgot which crimes though. Can anyone help??
That's not true. Ghandi drove the British out with nonviolent means. King fought for racism without fighting. Im hoping the feminist movement was also nonviolent.(One part of history I never studied)

Wow, I am glad you have studied your history text book, however much of these...(points?) are not applicable at all.

Hooah, I have been to the sand box, cant say I liked it much. But from that perspective you come to realize that everything you see, every single piece of information you recieve, even that which you concieve in your own brain is slanted and warped in some way. Thus, you realize that you can never, ever count on anything and NOTHING is factual.

I realize that most of this response is irrelevant and not neccesary, but I felt motivated to reply.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by soezgg

Wow, I am glad you have studied your history text book, however much of these...(points?) are not applicable at all.

Hooah, I have been to the sand box, cant say I liked it much. But from that perspective you come to realize that everything you see, every single piece of information you recieve, even that which you concieve in your own brain is slanted and warped in some way. Thus, you realize that you can never, ever count on anything and NOTHING is factual.

I realize that most of this response is irrelevant and not neccesary, but I felt motivated to reply.

Please explain how these points are not applicable, because it's not getting through to me too well. You also say that you can count on nothing,and nothing is factual. So are you saying that everything anyone tells you, any officer or the man who originally sent you overseas to a savage conflict, is absolutely untrue? And if you do not follow untrue advice, then why do you follow it? I'm not saying your points are invalid in this post, just explain them, or they really will only serve as catalysts for arguments between you and the person that posted.

[soezgg]

Originally Posted by a breezy era

Please explain how these points are not applicable, because it's not getting through to me too well. You also say that you can count on nothing,and nothing is factual. So are you saying that everything anyone tells you, any officer or the man who originally sent you overseas to a savage conflict, is absolutely untrue? And if you do not follow untrue advice, then why do you follow it? I'm not saying your points are invalid in this post, just explain them, or they really will only serve as catalysts for arguments between you and the person that posted.

Actually, besides the literal translation of my statement, I meant it as a pure catalyst for what seems to me, the first ever interesting freely involved debate ever on CD forums. I mean, thus far, none of the mafia (who call them selves moderators) have jumped in with their giant powertripping egoes to tell me that they do not tolerate this kind of sexism to which I have so amiably referred.

But the literal translation: I meant that what you see in the media, what you learn in the news, textbooks, and statements other people have said, are all biased in a great way. So you have to be careful how you form your opinions, and realize that unless you have first hand experience, you are just spitting out someone else's version of what happened.

So when I see people on forums such as this, dictating all the information they have seen in CNN, I just laugh sadly because they are so uninformed and they dont even know it.

It IS a conspiracy.

Anyway. Off to work.

[Lisa Perez]

*Off topic*

Ahem.. Less tension and name calling.. Please? :/