Women and the Draft

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by soezgg

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.

I would 100% agree.

I was just talking to an on duty RA in my dorm about that. He's from Canada and was telling me that their history books are slanted in a way which always makes Canada look good. And when I thought about it, that's the way US text books are.

For instance, I never knew how bad times were during the Civil War until I saw the movie "Gangs of New York." I had never learned in History class that the US Army and Navy were used to quell conscription riots.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I agree definitly with the way that's worded, but I would also have to say that I think the public is generally misinformed if they are "spewing out" information given to them by many government offices. There will never be a state of unbias. An unbiased government only exists in a perfect state, which unfortunately is not possible under today's circumstances.

Yes, it is sad that people may just repeat what they read in history books, but there are many facts out there that are not biased. Take into account how much information is being hidden about this "draft issue." Many friends who I speak with were not even aware of its existence. Hiding information for election popularity is a form of bias, though in a very skewed way.

I believe the same can be said for draft laws that have lasted since World War II. There is bias there, and that is information from a national source, so therefore, yes there is going to be bias. But is that what is important? I think the more important question, if we plan to discuss the bias of resources, is how to avoid that bias, rather than to complain about it. Is it more useful, persay, in a state of conflict for the government to disallow capable fighters from defending their families, or is it better to avoid drafting them women into the front lines in hopes that they will remain convinced of their "physical inferiority?" just a couple questions to throw out, my apologies if they are too offtopic.

[Yan Wang]

We spent history class today looking a powerpoint made by Ithaca College students. It compared Newsweek covers during the Vietnam War to covers prior to the Gulf War and Afghanistan war. I saw what I expected in terms of how the media portrayed the various wars. The media holds more power than the President. History is unchangeable but the way its presented always is. I'm sure I'll get a different view of US history in Texas than in New York (perhaps that's how I'll know I'm in Texas, har har).

Notably, the New York Times ran an article just a few days ago criticizing THEMSELVES of not criticizing pre-Iraq war policies and government actions enough. They believed they failed at keeping the public informed before the war was declared. They believed in the media's power so much that they were willing to publicly admit it when they thought they did less than they could. Props.

[Adam Y.]

Yes, it is sad that people may just repeat what they read in history books, but there are many facts out there that are not biased. Take into account how much information is being hidden about this "draft issue." Many friends who I speak with were not even aware of its existence. Hiding information for election popularity is a form of bias, though in a very skewed way.

I watched the news. There was enough information on their to know the issue was present. In fact the last I heard was that there was not going to be a full fledged draft. Though there may be a form of it. From what I heard only computer people (I think) and translators may be drafted.

Notably, the New York Times ran an article just a few days ago criticizing THEMSELVES of not criticizing pre-Iraq war policies and government actions enough. They believed they failed at keeping the public informed before the war was declared. They believed in the media's power so much that they were willing to publicly admit it when they thought they did less than they could. Prop

I heard that too. In fact the commentary I heard was that the media was swinging from little coverage of the pre-war to the other extreme.

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.

Hey I knew that to be a fact. I remeber the Lend-Lease Act that was passed. Roosevelt did want to help anyway he could be he was facing a hard time.

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I remeber the Lend-Lease Act that was passed. Roosevelt did want to help anyway he could be he was facing a hard time.

I think what you meant to say is that you remember what your history book, your teacher, the news, or some documentary, etc. said about the Lend-Lease Act. Since you were not around during World War II, you don't actually remember the actual act since it was far outdated by your time and my time. This is wholely relevant to what is being discussed because as you have shown, most people (myself included) are no longer able to distinguish between what they remember and what they actually are getting from a second-hand source. So as stated above by soezgg (and stated often by the best history teachers), "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."

[soezgg]

First, props to Yan.

Next:

Originally Posted by a breezy era

Is it more useful, persay, in a state of conflict for the government to disallow capable fighters from defending their families, or is it better to avoid drafting them women into the front lines in hopes that they will remain convinced of their "physical inferiority?"

I am quite sure that women are not physically inferior, I mean ballet is completely dominated by strong legged women who can stand on their tip toes and do ludicrous splits. Figure skating is another physically demanding sport in which women are much better at, and quite frankly, I am ashamed to see any men participating (sorry, but its true).

But when it comes to the battle field, when it comes to carrying ruck-sacks and rifles through desert, mountains and jungles, when it comes to hand-to-hand combat and consistent injury, MEN will remain the number one draft pick (nice pun $$). And, I think this is the general opinion of the US Draft Legislature. Not much we can do about it till millions of years of evolution makes women equal under the same conditions (granted that the human race survive that long).

However, how about women of other nations? They surely arent as pampered as American women. I might draft some of those before I would even consider American women.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by soezgg

However, how about women of other nations? They surely arent as pampered as American women. I might draft some of those before I would even consider American women.

Quite the interesting point, soezgg. I agree with you on this one, that many many American women may not be of a lifestyle that prioritizes wilderness survival. I may put into example the Israeli army, that requires every single individual to put 2 years of service into the army. The women I know from Israel generally follow a kosher diet, which is very very healthy (eliminating quite a few unnecessary fats). Among other things, having come from the not so rich sector of Moscow, I remember a lot of my neighbors and friends' sisters being much healthier than I see many people in life today.

[Aaron Knight]

Some interesting discussion that has gone on these past few pages (yes, I read all before choosing to reply):

First off, I will preface by saying I don't believe there ought to be a draft for either men OR women, but will state that should there continue to be one, yes, women should be included.

Somewhere way back (maybe page 2, they've kind of rolled together) in this thread, I believe our "Devil's Advocate" referred to a constant need for our nation to defend its citizenry with a strong standing military force, with mention of 9/11 and Iraq. There is no connection between those two events, and although this is off-topic, I must state that.

Violence as a reaction to violence is sending us in a infinite loop. It isn't helping us here, it isn't helping the people in Iraq and in Afghanistan (who at least had some infrastructure prior to our bombs, unlike they have now for the most part), and all we're doing at the moment is alienating those we should be begging forgiveness from and/or asking for help.

Moving on, I don't believe that the Selective Service registration is really symbolic of anything these days. Yes, it allows you to receive federal financial aid, and allows you to register to vote (yes, you have to register for the selective service prior to or at the same time as you register to vote). However, it's just a piece of paper. Another little piece of paper to carry around. Mostly a symbol of being a male turning 18 (ooh boy), and entirely useless in the last 20 or so years except to identify your continued existance to the military. (Yes, I have registered. Woo Hoo.)

This is somewhat unfinished and probably significantly offtopic, but I just felt the need to say it. Sorry

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Aaron Knight

Some interesting discussion that has gone on these past few pages (yes, I read all before choosing to reply):

First off, I will preface by saying I don't believe there ought to be a draft for either men OR women, but will state that should there continue to be one, yes, women should be included.

Somewhere way back (maybe page 2, they've kind of rolled together) in this thread, I believe our "Devil's Advocate" referred to a constant need for our nation to defend its citizenry with a strong standing military force, with mention of 9/11 and Iraq. There is no connection between those two events, and although this is off-topic, I must state that.

Violence as a reaction to violence is sending us in a infinite loop. It isn't helping us here, it isn't helping the people in Iraq and in Afghanistan (who at least had some infrastructure prior to our bombs, unlike they have now for the most part), and all we're doing at the moment is alienating those we should be begging forgiveness from and/or asking for help.

Moving on, I don't believe that the Selective Service registration is really symbolic of anything these days. Yes, it allows you to receive federal financial aid, and allows you to register to vote (yes, you have to register for the selective service prior to or at the same time as you register to vote). However, it's just a piece of paper. Another little piece of paper to carry around. Mostly a symbol of being a male turning 18 (ooh boy), and entirely useless in the last 20 or so years except to identify your continued existance to the military. (Yes, I have registered. Woo Hoo.)

This is somewhat unfinished and probably significantly offtopic, but I just felt the need to say it. Sorry

Alright, first off I don't appreciate being called the devil's advocate, if you want to call me out, just do it honarably and use my name.

I have a drivers license. Does that mean I need it? No, I've never been pulled over by a police officer and been required to show it. That doesn't nesecarilly mean that I will never need and and be forced to show and abide by it.

I don't see how you can sign a piece of paper and think you don't have to follow the obligations set forth in it. Do you people have no personal pride?

[soezgg]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I don't see how you can sign a piece of paper and think you don't have to follow the obligations set forth in it. Do you people have no personal pride?

Yeah props, I agree with this.

Originally Posted by AaronKnight

Violence as a reaction to violence is sending us in a infinite loop. It isn't helping us here, it isn't helping the people in Iraq and in Afghanistan (who at least had some infrastructure prior to our bombs, unlike they have now for the most part), and all we're doing at the moment is alienating those we should be begging forgiveness from and/or asking for help.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh...right.

Anyway, aside from the obvious oversight on behalf of debate-ready-rebel-political high school students everywhere, people dont realize that proactivity is the essential key to preventing events like pearl harbor, embassy bombings, world trade center bombing, uss cole bombing, 9/11 attack on world trade center and Pentagon, and countless other significant events.

We could sit around on our hands with thumbs you know where, or we could scour the earth for our enemies (which in turn creates more, but that is something we have to just deal with). Peace, of course, is completely idealistic, but I assure you, as long as man survives, there will be war. I dont feel the need to quote every single famous ancient philosopher who agrees with me.

As a result of war, we need an Army. The purpose of the US Army, according to Department of the Army, is: to deter war, and if deterrance fails, to win in combat.

Having clearly established the need for an Army, we now need people to be in it. Most government established armed forces are volunteer, however some are mandatory, and some you have to join just to get a job or daily food (N Korea cough cough). In our Armed Forces, we have millions of volunteer patriots, who fight purely to fulfil a personal need to defend their nation as a symbol of everything they value or love. And some are just here for the college money, training, pay, or out of complete boredom blah blah blah.

Anyway, when not enough people join, and we need millions more to join, the Government says 'hey your living in my $@#$@#$@#$@# country, under my protection, we beat the $@#$@#$@#$@# brits to make you live free, now GO FIGHT!!' (sounds kind of like my dad when I lived under 'his house his rules' right?)

Anyway, that is why we have a draft. And if you dont like it, say 'screw this I'm moving to canada', like i have heard many young idealistic political activist cowards say.

Get a clue.

Good game.

Next?

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by soezgg

Having clearly established the need for an Army, we now need people to be in it. Most government established armed forces are volunteer, however some are mandatory, and some you have to join just to get a job or daily food (N Korea cough cough). In our Armed Forces, we have millions of volunteer patriots, who fight purely to fulfil a personal need to defend their nation as a symbol of everything they value or love. And some are just here for the college money, training, pay, or out of complete boredom blah blah blah.

Anyway, when not enough people join, and we need millions more to join, the Government says 'hey your living in my $@#$@#$@#$@# country, under my protection, we beat the $@#$@#$@#$@# brits to make you live free, now GO FIGHT!!' (sounds kind of like my dad when I lived under 'his house his rules' right?)

Anyway, that is why we have a draft. And if you dont like it, say 'screw this I'm moving to canada', like i have heard many young idealistic political activist cowards say.

Many countries I have heard of that require service, Israel being a prime example, it is a matter of personal pride to work in the army. Since everyone does it, there is no discrimination against sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. However, in a country that can't call for volunteers without being prejudced against 50% or more of them, I don't think it is an effective stance to say everyone should be proud to go into the army to fight for things they don't believe in. It is a generalization, an idealistic thought that a large majority of the United States population would have quite that much personal pride. If we as a country more heatedly valued our presence for the purpose of "winning battles"/"deterring war", I would agree with you and say that our armed forces are based on everyone's well being. But what about people who don't agree with slaughter, torture and prejudice? What do you say to them when you tell them about the pride to be in the army?

I do however agree with you that hightailing out of the country is a dangerous and not particularly courageous move at this point in time. I would not go so far as to call them cowards. You fight to live and for your family to live, be it in the name of your country or your government or your town or your state. Some people don't share these values, they have their own, which is why the draft will never gain full support, for men women or any combination thereof.

If you have been reading on the actual "draft" thread, you may have seen the discussions as to why the draft will or will not occur, and you can probably notice it leans heavily towards not occurring. Once again I would state that I don't feel this country is quite as glorified as you may think it is, but we are of differing opinions, and I make no move to stop you from acting out for your beliefs. So please, respect others' opinions in the light of this conflict, whether they wish to move to Canada or stand by you in combat.

[soezgg]

Originally Posted by a breezy era

If you have been reading on the actual "draft" thread, you may have seen the discussions as to why the draft will or will not occur, and you can probably notice it leans heavily towards not occurring. Once again I would state that I don't feel this country is quite as glorified as you may think it is, but we are of differing opinions, and I make no move to stop you from acting out for your beliefs. So please, respect others' opinions in the light of this conflict, whether they wish to move to Canada or stand by you in combat.

Yeah I was one of the ones who several times said that draft would not occur.

Yeah I do respect people who flee fighting because I have high tailed it in quite a few fights myself.

Yeah I do respect other peoples opinions, I made no vicious attacks on anyone, but chose to use my freedom of speech and make an opinion that ANYONE WHO RUNS TO CANADA TO DRAFT DODGE IS A $@#$@#$@#$@# COWARD. (Caps means I am yelling at my monitor, for emphasis)

Yeah. Thats my opinion. Respect it.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I have nothing against your opinion at all, but I am tired of the fact that this thread has turned personal, and yes that is partially my fault.

It has also turned vastly vastly off topic.

So what say we quit the personal attacks you and I and get back on topic and try to relate this whole "desertion" thing back to the actual topic of Women in the draft? How do you feel the general public would react, men and women wise, if women were drafted?

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by a breezy era

How do you feel the general public would react, men and women wise, if women were drafted?

I don't think it would go very well because we have ideals we expect men and women to be like.

Men are supposed to be tall, strong and brave. With muscles upon muscles, hitting the gym daily. Think Abercrombie models.

Women are supposed to be tall, dainty, and thin. And even though their feminine bodies are programmed to carry more fat that men, the general trend in pop cuture is that you should see fat nowhere and should even be able to make out most of a woman's skeletal system. Given the right circumstances, artificial fat (silicon) can be added in places where we think it should be.

The problem is that most women and men don't fulfill those ideals. Most men are weaker either by having a smaller body or by just being overweight than they're supposed to be and most women much more robust.

Essentially, the only way the Army can make the draft seem even remotely equal and also allow women is for everyone who's serving to complete a fitness test. If you can't carry a 160 pound person X number of feet, than you shouldn't be placed on the front lines. From my perspective , I would say 50% of men fall under that category along with about 20% of women.

I also don't follow the "bullet sponge" reasoning. The current rumors about the draft say that computer people and linguists will be sought after. This of course plays particularly close to home for me, next year I will get a degree in computer engineering. I'm sure they'd love to throw someone fresh out of college with no familly (wife, children) or career into the draft. If there was a draft, the army could better utilize myself and alot of other Americans by using us as specialists and not front line combat positions.

Which of course means that there should be a much lower fitness standards for non-combatant military personell. This would seem very sexist but in all honesty, I'm sure there's many men and women sitting in hospital beds in Iraq and Germany just wanting someone to talk to. A perfect non-combatant job would be for compassionate men, or more traditionally women to have some basic medical training and just spend their day visiting with the soldiers while they are in bed. They are in the worst state of their lives, suffering from a potentially life threatening injury. Talk about life, play a game, anything. These guys are away from their loved ones and I'm sure something they don't always get is a compassionate person to share time with.

There's so many non-combat positions that would be great for men and women of all fitness levels to pick up I could go on forever. Just because we're drafting combatants doesn't mean we shouldn't also draft people who could make the military a better place.

[Aaron Knight]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Alright, first off I don't appreciate being called the devil's advocate, if you want to call me out, just do it honarably and use my name.

Excuse me, I believe you referred to yourself as such a few pages of posts ago. Hence the reason I used that term.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I have a drivers license. Does that mean I need it? No, I've never been pulled over by a police officer and been required to show it. That doesn't nesecarilly [sic] mean that I will never need and and be forced to show and abide by it.

I never claimed anything of the sort. Nor did I make any claim that I would not live up to it should I be called up to do so. However, in this day and age, the primary purpose of that card is to make yourself as a male citizen of the United States eligible to vote and receive financial aid. Period.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I don't see how you can sign a piece of paper and think you don't have to follow the obligations set forth in it. Do you people have no personal pride?

I have plenty, thanks. As said above, I have not made any claim that I would not follow up on my obligations, as slim as the odds are of the draft actually being reinstated (especially since the last report the Army gave to the press was that there were enough volunteering right now to not require one in the foreseeable future).

Originally Posted by soezgg

Anyway, when not enough people join, and we need millions more to join, the Government says 'hey your living in my $@#$@#$@#$@# country, under my protection, we beat the $@#$@#$@#$@# brits to make you live free, now GO FIGHT!!' (sounds kind of like my dad when I lived under 'his house his rules' right?)

Anyway, that is why we have a draft. And if you dont like it, say 'screw this I'm moving to canada', like i have heard many young idealistic political activist cowards say.

You counter your own earlier arguments here. We haven't had that position, as you've said before, where we have needed a draft, in over 20 years. I also consider myself somewhat of a "young idealistic political activist," however I don't consider "moving to Canada" to be the solution. Activism requires participation in that which one wishes to change. Yes, I'm probably too liberal for my own good. So be it. It's just as American as our far-religious right current government.

I don't believe that the Draft has a common real purpose these days, although I understand its importance in previous generations. As I also said earlier, you will note that should there continue to be a draft, I do support the inclusion of women in it, as it should not be exclusionary.

Our political system allows for dissent. I don't believe in our current war, which our government brought us into through deceit. Period. I also lack any trust in a government leading us into conflicts in general who dodged it themselves when they were eligible earlier... what happened to the long ago days when the leadership led their country themselves. Oh wait, our government is so far removed from the common troops, that they don't particularly care. Our president has daughters, not sons, so he has nothing to worry about.

That got a bit off-topic very quickly, and I apologize in advance. But wrapping oneself in the flag-waving patriotic spirit and claiming we need to be the global police force and remove all that oppose us is not the entirity of this nation's opinion. Please remember that dissent is patriotic too.