|
Women and the Draft (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sifntj0r |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
uhh.. occrider, i think what he was saying was he doesn't agree with conscription. however, he's not going to leave the country over it. he IS meeting with like minded people and trying to effect change.
you can call it bitching if you want, but then i guess the blacks were just bitching when they wanted to be free? |
using an analogy such as the blacks fight for freedom is just plain silly. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Conscription is necessary in the time of war, because many people are lazy, introvert, don't have firm ideals, care only about themselves, etc.
Therefore, those people need to be pushed into service, because they'll never do it themselves.
Imagine that paying taxes was non-obligatory. Few people would pay them because of their altruism, but most would just let somebody else do their duty. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Conscription is necessary in the time of war, because many people are lazy, introvert, don't have firm ideals, care only about themselves, etc.
Therefore, those people need to be pushed into service, because they'll never do it themselves.
Imagine that paying taxes was non-obligatory. Few people would pay them because of their altruism, but most would just let somebody else do their duty. |
Exactly ... it's like enjoying trash pickup ... highway roads ... public parks ... or any public good without making payment. You would be leeching off of others. You can't call conscription slavery because there's nothing holding you back from leaving this country and avoiding it altogether. You refuse to move because you selfishly want to exploit all the other advantages and benefits of living in your country but you're failing to uphold your end of the bargain. If you are THAT much opposed to the practice then you always have the opportunity to flee a state that reduces its citizens to "slavery". My guess is that the reason why you don't just leave is because you don't care enough about the issue to give up all the benefits you gain from living in your society. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by sifntj0r
using an analogy such as the blacks fight for freedom is just plain silly. |
why? slavery was something that most people accepted, and thought was OK. A small minority were against it, and eventually that minority grew more and more vocal. they ralleyed together, and eventually slavery was abolished.
how is conscription different? it's something that i personally am against, and so is arbiter. maybe now, we are only the beginning of a small minority, and this is how we get more vocal.
in 50 years conscription could be an embarrasing point in our history, much like slavery.
so... i fail to see the difference between the two, please explain. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Exactly ... it's like enjoying trash pickup ... highway roads ... public parks ... or any public good without making payment. |
Whether or not conscription serves to further the public good is highly debatable.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst99/tst082399.htm
| quote: |
My guess is that the reason why you don't just leave is because you don't care enough about the issue to give up all the benefits you gain from living in your society. |
Actually the reason I don't want to leave is because I have a lot of personal attachments here - there are plenty of societies which provide greater benefits to their citizens in the form of socialized programs overseas, it that was what I was after.
| quote: | As stated in webster's dictionary:
con·scrip·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'skrip-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1800
: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service :
Maybe I'm being a bit haste but I'll check other dictionaries to see if slavery is indeed a definition for conscription. I'll let you know if I come up with anything. |
I think you're looking at the wrong entry.
According to The American Hertiage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition a slave is "one who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence." Soldiers are clearly abjectly subservient to their superiors, hence conscription is a specific instance of enslavement.
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
is it true that they bring down morale? i'd like to see your source for that, i would think the opposite, who doesn't like a little female company now and then. |
I read it in a report of an internal study by the U.S. Navy some years ago - it was related to men feeling that women were being given superior treatment, even when it did not exist under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, I can't find the report anymore - the PC police have done an awfully good job of containing this kind of information these days.
| quote: | Originally posted by sifntj0r
just put women in all the admin/sissy roles, the kind of positions you'd find ppl like arbiter occupying. |
You're probably right. Why would the military want to waste someone with my administrative talents when there are plenty of mindless drones like you available to stick on the front lines? |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I read it in a report of an internal study by the U.S. Navy some years ago - it was related to men feeling that women were being given superior treatment, even when it did not exist under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, I can't find the report anymore - the PC police have done an awfully good job of containing this kind of information these days.
|
that's too bad. i'd have liked to have seen the report. but, even if you had a link to it, i doubt the source, internal investigations are notorioius for being biased. I can see easily see some military high ups tailoring the report to make women in the military look bad.
in any case, i think that women in the military is a good idea in general. like you said though, the sexes are equal but not equivalent. I don't think that women should be put in roles where they could end up in hand to hand combat, as they are not suited to this. however, it has nothing to do with their sex, but rather their size, i don't think a 5 foot, 120lb guy should be in this position either.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
You're probably right. Why would the military want to waste someone with my administrative talents when there are plenty of mindless drones like you available to stick on the front lines? |
i like the way you handled that, very classsy. ;) |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
I got an e-mail from a friend in the Army about this topic a while ago in relation to something else. Allow me to borrow a few of his thoughts...
In the British Armed Forces, it is generally accepted that women can serve on the front line in a number of 'pseudo-combat' roles. For example, we have female soldiers in the Royal Logistics Corps, the Royal Signals Corps, and female NCO aircrew working on the transport squadrons of the Royal Air Force. We have gradually become accustomed to this over the last 15 years or so, and things are unlikely to change a great deal in the near future. As of yet, however, we do not allow women to join the infantry or cavaly regiments, except on attachment from a support arm. The Royal Navy have become more integrated recently with women serving on warships.
From an equality point of view, ideally I do not believe this is right, but not for the reasons often cited.
The suggestion has often been made that women are physically inferior to men. From an anatomical point of view this is correct. However the relatively lightweight and compact nature of today's personal weapons seems to negate this argument. Indeed we have all known very physically fit women before and this argument is quite a shallow one if it is all you are going to base it on.
Rightly or wrongly, men have long been considered the breadwinners of society, and women the home-makers. In the past few decades these traditional barriers have come down, and women have began to integrate themselves into what was once a male-dominated area. This is all well and good, but the militancy of political correctness and feminism has altered practical means of thinking. Men and women are no longer thought of as complementary in skill and virtue, a team of unequal value with distinct yet intertwinable roles to play in any situation. Instead, militant feminism has made us adversaries where we were once allies. Women do have a role to play in the forces, and a valuable one at that, but let us recognise that the roles are distinct. There are jobs men can do better than women, and vice versa. Firstly, let us recognise this, and find a method of best employing these distinctions to the benefit of the armed forces.
Secondly, war is horrific. Let us recognise the devastation it causes and it's impact on society as a whole. It is generally accepted that women are the calming influence on man. In the world in which we live, it is the mother, and thus the woman who brings life into the world, and who provides comfort to the child. There are infinite examples throughout history which show that war changes people. Many veterans have described war as a dehumanising experience which detaches those who have experienced conflict from the good of mankind. To expose the most important influence on the life of our future generations to the rigours and horrors of war would serve as a detriment to society and it's progression. For this reason, any country which sends it's women, it's child-bearers to the front-line is morally bankrupt. One only needs to consider the stories of the women in Central-American juntas who had to be taught with the aid of dolls how to pick up a child and demonstrate any form of affection to it to see how damaging it could be.
On a related note, it should also be acknowledged that humans seem to be slowly becoming desensitised to the realities of war, if not the experience. In the Vietnam War the American people 'back home' were horrified when images of War were brought to their televisions, and the reality of thousands of Americans boys - their average age just 19 - lying dead in some far-flung corner of the world, began to shock and outrage people. There was a wave of protest across America. But as the reach of the media grows, war is no longer a 'concept' in some country on the other side of the world. We see it regularly on our news channels, we can read about it readily on the internet. Women's rights may have changed over the years, but rightly or wrongly so the perception of women as 'tender' has not died and maybe never will. Can you imagine the outrage in today's climate if thousands of young women, barely adults, were being slaughtered in some Asian jungles? More worryingly, can you imagine if, in decades to come, this was accepted? JohnSmith, you are correct when you talk about changing social attitudes, but have you considered the implications of a shift in such a direction for future society. We have just ended the most devastating century in history, where millions of lives were cheaply discarded around the world in the name of victory. Anything which further moves attitudes towards accepting this as a reality is potentially destructive, wouldn't you agree? It would be detrimental to the morale of the nation to hear of stories of massacred platoons of young women, and even more detrimental to society as a whole if we grew to a stage of accepting this a reality. For this reason, I see women fighting on the front line as a "no-win" situation.
Thirdly, the Army is a close-knit community where anyone who does not fit in is excluded. This camaraderie, as in all walks of life, can help people through tough times. Any member of the group that does not fit in compromises the fighting effectivness of a platoon/troop etc. Again, historical accounts of war have often demonstrated this point. Imagine the effects of a beautiful young woman arriving on a platoon. With 30 men fighting for here affections and attention, the focus of their attention is far from the job at hand. We have all witnessed this in various contexts of our lives. The spurned approaches will inevitably lead to resentment and the team spirit soon dissapears, and morale suffers. In the battle of Waterloo, the French heavily outnumbered the British, yet it was the morale of the British troops under Wellington that ensured our victory. Morale is an essential part of war. Compromise moral, and you compromise lives. That is why the Army do not allow women to serve on the front line, not their physical difference.
Lastly, in the experience of the Royal Navy, regardless of how well women have performed, they have been met with hostility. I applaud their courage, yet what has been found is that the men do not resent them for the fact that they are women, but because they complain. Men have put up with conditions at sea for years. Cramped, often noisy, and imprivate conditions have existed for years. However the women who have gone to sea have complained from the start, making demands that men would never dream of making. Imagine then the resentment, when women demand equality while expecting unconfined living conditions. This resentment would be amplified in time of war. The principle surely should be, if you want to be treated as equals, you must expect to be treated as equals, and if you don't like it, grin and bear it, or leave. This reputation will follow the women who go to sea for a long time to come, and in a lot of cases undeservedly, however it is indicative of the situation at large. |
|
|
| occrider |
Yea I read that article on how people would "rush" to volunteer to defend their liberty in a war such as WW2. Then I found the statistics:
6,332,000 volunteers
17,955,000 men examined for induction
6,420,000 rejected as unfit
11,535,000 drafted
Hardly the mad rush one would expect for such an altruistic war. Then among those killed in combat ... aproximately 2/3rds of the casualties were from among the ranks of the volunteers. It doesn't inspire much admiration of the masses in general.
| quote: |
I think you're looking at the wrong entry.
According to The American Hertiage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition a slave is "one who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence." Soldiers are clearly abjectly subservient to their superiors, hence conscription is a specific instance of enslavement.
|
So despite the fact that you have the opportunity to leave, you have grown enough attachments to this country that you would be willing to bear the sacrifice of living a life of slavery? To me that seems like a conscientious and willing decision on your part to participte ...
I think you may not be analyzing your definition enough:
Main Entry: ab·ject
Pronunciation: 'ab-"jekt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin abjectus, from past participle of abicere to cast off, from ab- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 15th century
1 : sunk to or existing in a low state or condition
2 a : cast down in spirit : SERVILE, SPIRITLESS b : showing utter hopelessness or resignation
3 : expressing or offered in a humble and often ingratiating spirit
A man who is conscipted is not subjected to a state of utter hopelessness or resignation. As stated before ... that person always has the OPPORTUNITY to escape the situation that is presented to him! He has the ultimate choice to his future and is thus not hopeless. Also you stated that soldiers are "cleary ABJECTLY subservient to their superiors." Does that mean we should abolish the entire military? Does that mean that I am no longer bound to the laws of this country? I can take your argument and pervert it into a multitude of actions while adhering to the same basic principle. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
You're probably right. Why would the military want to waste someone with my administrative talents when there are plenty of mindless drones like you available to stick on the front lines? |
ahahah administrative talents in the military :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
what contradiction of terms will you suggest next? military intelligence? :stongue: :stongue:
dont hold onto that ticket of yourself too tightly, it aint worth much son. |
|
|
| cycloptor |
im gonna go with no. what if a lot of women were killed. nobody to make babies. man....that would be a seriously depleated gene pool.
c'mon folks... its a joke |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
If lots of men get killed, that is also depleting the gene pool.
Anyway, I am against conscription unless it is of vital interest to the country. But in those cases when conscription is necessarry, I wouldn't differentiate depending on sex, but rather depending on size and health condition. Like JohnSmith said, 150cm 55kg guy shouldn't go to the front lines, and such a woman should not also. But a 200cm 90kg woman should. In the end, there will be much more women then men in the administrative/support sector, and much more men on the battlefield, but that will be because of their capabilities and not because of their sex. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
If lots of men get killed, that is also depleting the gene pool.
Anyway, I am against conscription unless it is of vital interest to the country. But in those cases when conscription is necessarry, I wouldn't differentiate depending on sex, but rather depending on size and health condition. Like JohnSmith said, 150cm 55kg guy shouldn't go to the front lines, and such a woman should not also. But a 200cm 90kg woman should. In the end, there will be much more women then men in the administrative/support sector, and much more men on the battlefield, but that will be because of their capabilities and not because of their sex. |
I accept your point and you are morally correct in trying to deliver equal opportunity, but I think to practice it would be immoral because of other factors. I don't believe it is so simple to deliver equal opportunity with sexes as you would with race. A black man and a white man are the same, a man and a woman are not. Despite all the progressions of the last 100 years, a kid will still more often than not go running to his "mammy" (or mommy if you're American) when something goes wrong. This seems to occur across the globe, whatever your culture. It has always been this way and perhaps it always will. Women have come a long way in establishing their position in a previously male-dominated world, and I sincerely hope this trend continues, but the "privilege" of running headlong into a barrage of machine-gun fire is one I think people can get by without.
There are both strategic and moral issues which convince me women should not fight on the front line. The only coherent argument I've heard for women serving on the front line is "for the sake of equal rights". But serving on the front line in a war is not a normal activity, nor is it one a person should treasure. Women not serving on the front line is not necessarily indicative of a society who consider women weak or "not up to it" or "inferior". Militant feminists would jump to this conclusion, but I suggest you consider the points in my previous post - there are important reasons. |
|
|
|
|
