if there were a draft, should females be drafted?

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


in the event of a draft, should females be drafted?
yes, because females make great soldiers 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
yes, because females make great soldiers 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
yes, just to make it fair (since males would be drafted) 23%  23%  [ 18 ]
yes, just to make it fair (since males would be drafted) 23%  23%  [ 18 ]
yes, but they should be given the option of avoiding combat zones 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
yes, but they should be given the option of avoiding combat zones 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
no, because girls can't fight 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
no, because girls can't fight 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
no, because I am chivalrous and wouldn't want to see females in a war zone 6%  6%  [ 5 ]
no, because I am chivalrous and wouldn't want to see females in a war zone 6%  6%  [ 5 ]
no, because I am an all-around pacifist 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
no, because I am an all-around pacifist 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 78

BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

03 Oct 2006, 8:21 pm

This topic in in our news too.

It was said (don't know if its true) the Israelli army had women in front lines, but stopped as they found that male soldiers would take more risks (and get themselves injured/killed too) trying to help a woman than they would a man. It was a therefore thought to be a tactical mistake to put women in combat.

Whether or not you think people should or shouldn't behave like that, the Israelli's real life experience is that is how people respond in a combat situtation, or so I've heard.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

03 Oct 2006, 8:28 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
This topic in in our news too.

It was said (don't know if its true) the Israelli army had women in front lines, but stopped as they found that male soldiers would take more risks (and get themselves injured/killed too) trying to help a woman than they would a man. It was a therefore thought to be a tactical mistake to put women in combat.


True but when I went to join the National Guard they want me to do the dangerous
mission of typing and phone answering. Women could do most the work in the military
but the land based combat. Oh I ran like hell when they told me I would be doing admin work.

There is a book called "weakest link" in which a guy (yes a man) goes into the economics of women in military and says that its not cost effective. I think modern war
is complex task requiring a small number of real men on the front lines and many others could do the support jobs.



hyperbolic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,869

03 Oct 2006, 9:19 pm

Quote:
I don't think you can change your vote :(

Who voted for chivalry? I must know!! !!


Ironically, me. Well, if you read my explanation behind my decision to want to change my vote, you will hopefully find nothing unchivalrous unless you are living in the 14th century.



walk-in-the-rain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 928

03 Oct 2006, 10:47 pm

After considering the posts that women could do all the clerical non-combat work I think men would not want women drafted. If women get all the less dangerous jobs that would likely place most men at risk by having less positions for them that would not involve actual combat.



Alicorn
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

04 Oct 2006, 7:57 pm

Women demanded equality. Well drafting women would be equality. During the American Civil War we lost something like 600,000 men; that translates to 11 Vietnams. We should draft women until 11 Vietnams worth of them die in wars in the name of equality.


Oh wait women only want equality when it favors them... my bad.



Foible
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 51

04 Oct 2006, 10:44 pm

I vote -
Skip the draft, strip the political leaders naked and throw them into a darkened room with each other armed only with a soap-on-a-rope.

Will this solve anything? No. Will it make good reality TV (assuming IR cameras) - maybe.

War is senseless. Until the actual warmakers feel the war on their own flesh they are too stupid to stop.

Neither men nor women should be conscripted. If a war does not grab the heart of the people with its "justness" and compell them to fight from their own beliefs - then what the Hell are they fighting for?

That said, if the war comes to me, to my city, my neighborhood, I'll fight down to my last rusty fork and my last bent chopstick.



werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

04 Oct 2006, 10:59 pm

Foible wrote:
I vote -
Skip the draft, strip the political leaders naked and throw them into a darkened room with each other armed only with a soap-on-a-rope.


I am in favor of bringing back American Gladiators. Nothing would be funnier than seeing George W. Bush and whoever the Muslims want to put up compete in the joust. :lol: :lol: :lol:



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

04 Oct 2006, 11:12 pm

werbert wrote:
I am in favor of bringing back American Gladiators. Nothing would be funnier than seeing George W. Bush and whoever the Muslims want to put up compete in the joust. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If its a fight to death with soap on a rope, who would you like to see loose (killed) George W or a goliath from the middle east. :D


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 05 Oct 2006, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

04 Oct 2006, 11:17 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
If its a fight to death with soap on a rope, who would you like to see loose (killed) George W or a goliath-like tea towell head? :lol:


Bush, but only because I know he's not fighting on my behalf.



violet_yoshi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,297

05 Oct 2006, 12:12 am

en_una_isla wrote:
violet_yoshi, that would be the last option on the list! :lol:


The last option insinuates that you belive so strongly in peace that you would refuse the draft. What I'm saying is, refusing to go on the bases of not wanting to get one's butt kicked. The 2nd one is more of a selfish reason, to be honest.


_________________
"Sprinkle, sprinkle, little bar, what I wonder is a cat" - Cheese from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends


Sorce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 567

05 Oct 2006, 7:46 am

Alicorn wrote:
Women demanded equality. Well drafting women would be equality. During the American Civil War we lost something like 600,000 men; that translates to 11 Vietnams. We should draft women until 11 Vietnams worth of them die in wars in the name of equality.


Oh wait women only want equality when it favors them... my bad.


Or just maybe, we care a little more about our safety. The military has had years of problems like this, and they have put in measures to try and prevent this from happening, but they always do a half-assed job. When this gets fixed, then I'm all for drafting women too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01355.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/ ... 3849.shtml



en_una_isla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,876

05 Oct 2006, 8:06 am

Alicorn wrote:
Women demanded equality. Well drafting women would be equality. During the American Civil War we lost something like 600,000 men; that translates to 11 Vietnams. We should draft women until 11 Vietnams worth of them die in wars in the name of equality.


Oh wait women only want equality when it favors them... my bad.


I wonder if a 100% female military could really work? Honestly I think between pregnancies and women's greater tendency for pacifism, it would be an abysmal failure.



RainSong
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,306
Location: Ohio

08 Oct 2006, 7:38 pm

Alicorn wrote:
Women demanded equality. Well drafting women would be equality. During the American Civil War we lost something like 600,000 men; that translates to 11 Vietnams. We should draft women until 11 Vietnams worth of them die in wars in the name of equality.


Oh wait women only want equality when it favors them... my bad.


Tell you what. When we have a NFL with only women for however many number of seasons NFL's been around, then we can have a full woman army.

Personally, I feel no one should be drafted. If we can't have enough for an army (and the other side doesn't either), then where would the war be? If I were drafted I would fight as hard as I could to get out of it, because quite frankly, I find that most wars are inferior techniques, brought about by leaders without enough brain cells to sit around a table and work out a plan of peace. You're not allowed to fight in preschool, so I don't understand why adults are allowed to fight.


_________________
"Nothing worth having is easy."

Three years!


Hazelwudi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 511

09 Oct 2006, 5:43 am

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
This topic in in our news too.

It was said (don't know if its true) the Israelli army had women in front lines, but stopped as they found that male soldiers would take more risks (and get themselves injured/killed too) trying to help a woman than they would a man. It was a therefore thought to be a tactical mistake to put women in combat.

Whether or not you think people should or shouldn't behave like that, the Israelli's real life experience is that is how people respond in a combat situtation, or so I've heard.


Young women are biologically more valuable than men are. No matter what politically correct stuff gets drummed into people's heads, deep down people know better... and when the chips are down they'll act accordingly.

If you're looking to repopulate after a war, the number of healthy young females in your society forms an absolute upper limit as to how many babies can be born in nine months, whereas a single well-motivated male can father hundreds of children in the same span of time. Young females are invariably the 'limiting reagent' in this biological equation... not males.



MrMark
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2006
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,918
Location: Tallahassee, FL

09 Oct 2006, 6:02 am

Hazelwudi wrote:
BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
This topic in in our news too.

It was said (don't know if its true) the Israelli army had women in front lines, but stopped as they found that male soldiers would take more risks (and get themselves injured/killed too) trying to help a woman than they would a man. It was a therefore thought to be a tactical mistake to put women in combat.

Whether or not you think people should or shouldn't behave like that, the Israelli's real life experience is that is how people respond in a combat situtation, or so I've heard.


Young women are biologically more valuable than men are. No matter what politically correct stuff gets drummed into people's heads, deep down people know better... and when the chips are down they'll act accordingly.

If you're looking to repopulate after a war, the number of healthy young females in your society forms an absolute upper limit as to how many babies can be born in nine months, whereas a single well-motivated male can father hundreds of children in the same span of time. Young females are invariably the 'limiting reagent' in this biological equation... not males.

I'm glad somebody pointed that out. You don't want your female population decimated. Even if you lose the war and all of your males are killed, your genes survive in the offspring produced by your females and the victorious males.


_________________
"The cordial quality of pear or plum
Rises as gladly in the single tree
As in the whole orchards resonant with bees."
- Emerson


aspiegirl2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,442
Location: Washington, USA

28 Oct 2006, 11:38 pm

I'd say yes but to give them an option to avoid combat zones. It's not like 50 years ago when most women didn't play "real" sports (like crosscountry, soccer, and lacrosse), so more women are definitely in shape since then. I'm not saying that some sports like tennis or badminton aren't real sports, but they aren't as active and cardiovascular as, say, crosscountry running. Anyways, I've also heard things as to why women shouldn't be drafted into the army; like how their menstrual periods would make them smell in combat zones and whatnot (from my sister who was in the US Marines). I don't think that people should be worried about smelling in a combat zone if you ask me! lol I seriously wouldn't mind being drafted; it would probably clear some misconceptions I have about the military aside from the hard work I'd have to go through, and possibly death. If I was drafted and had to go into a combat zone I'd probably want to have a female leader, however, since they'd know more about lady problems and wouldn't stop to help other women as much as a man may (as said in the last post). Plus, if there was a female draft, they should limit the number of females drafted (like picking random social-security numbers from all the women in a certain age group in the country) because we wouldn't want all of the female population killed (as also said).


_________________
I'm 24 years old and live in WA State. I was diagnosed with Asperger's at 9. I received a BS in Psychology in 2011 and I intend to help people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, either through research, application, or both. On the ?Pursuit of Aspieness?.