US Women: Would you sign up for the selective service if required?
- Thread starter das_nut
- Start date
I'm finding this debate very interesting.
I think women should be held equal to men and that should mean being drafted but I have a lot of reservations about the military in general. One of my friend's relatives joined the army and had a complete mental breakdown. I also have met quite a few squaddies and they seem like the most vile, racist, misogynistic, thick as **** morons that you would ever want to meet. Now that will probably be unpopular.
I think this forum is far friendlier and it doesn't have the idiotic trolls that the other place had.
I think women should be held equal to men and that should mean being drafted but I have a lot of reservations about the military in general. One of my friend's relatives joined the army and had a complete mental breakdown. I also have met quite a few squaddies and they seem like the most vile, racist, misogynistic, thick as **** morons that you would ever want to meet. Now that will probably be unpopular.I think this forum is far friendlier and it doesn't have the idiotic trolls that the other place had.
I think that, at least in western society, most women who go through that choose to do it. I do not, in any sense, feel that it is an unfair burden, unless they do not have the choice to not have a baby.
ETA: By the same token, it's why I find it inherently offensive when a male chimes in about his view of the moral objectionability of divorce, or moans about not having a say in a decision to abort or not abort - it's womenwho pay the physical price, so the decision must be theirs.
Slightly of topic , but NZ women already serve as front line troops in the NZ army . Some are in Afghanistan front line until the end of March when we (thankfully) bail out . They are popular with the female population in Afghanistan when they patrol the streets. One was killed by a road mine .
So its a question of , do women want the right to kill, like anyone else .
So its a question of , do women want the right to kill, like anyone else .
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
A very large amount of women throughout history did not choose childbirth, they had that agony forced on them repeatedly via arranged marriage and limited career options for women, plus a lack of contraception and no abortion available.
Women have only been able to choose quite recently when you consider the hundreds of thousands of years women have not had the right. So yes I do think that women have been through a heck of a lot to carry on the next generation and at times completely against their will.
And a lot of women want children but have to go through a lot to get it. They dont necessarily choose the pain, they just know they dont actually have the choice, and they also know that so much new technology has come about via the work of scientific researchers, but despite the fact that the Hadron Collider has come into being and we can now make microchips the width of a hair, childbirth is still almost as painful as it was in 1450.
I don't disagree that for much of history, and still today in much of the world, women have had little/no choice as far as having children. I just don't feel that I, or any woman who does have a choice, needs/deserves to be compensated for it.
I don't agree that childbirth is still as painful as it was in 1450 - there are drugs, and there are options. But even if there weren't, as long as women have the choice, they are deciding the pain/discomfort is a price worth paying.
I don't agree that childbirth is still as painful as it was in 1450 - there are drugs, and there are options. But even if there weren't, as long as women have the choice, they are deciding the pain/discomfort is a price worth paying.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
They should have to pass the same tests as men. Of course that will lead to more men still getting in, which will **** some people off.
I don't agree with the draft but if men are drafted then women should be too. And no getting exempted because you had a kid.
I don't agree with the draft but if men are drafted then women should be too. And no getting exempted because you had a kid.
yakherder
老外
I intended to avoid this thread for various reasons, but what the hell.
Let me start off by saying I have nothing against the concept of women in combat in and of itself. I'm not gonna say it doesn't make me nervous though.
The focus on the physical capabilities of women honestly makes me a bit worried because it reinforces what I already know, which is that this transition is likely to be spearheaded by people who have no freaking idea what front line combat entails. Yeah, women are physically weaker than men. But most men aren't cut out for combat either. Being physically capable is the absolute minimum requirement. What's on my mind are the mental aspects of it.
Back in WWI and WWII, it is estimated that 4 out of 5 people couldn't bring themselves to fire at the enemy even when their lives depended on it. Out of that 1/5 who did, most (whether consciously or unconsciously as a result of some intuitive aversion to killing), it was a very small percentage who did most of the killing. It's hard to measure exact numbers on the ground, but consider this: In the air, 1% of fighter pilots were responsible for 40% of enemy kills (If anyone finds this interesting, I encourage you to read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman). Without going into pages of data, to summarize the reason for this, roughly 2% if the population is born with the genetic makeup of a potential killer. These people end up as anything from special forces to firemen to successful businessmen or, under less than ideal circumstances, serial killers. These are the people who, for whatever reason, were born with the ability to take action without emotional consequence. It can allow a fireman to entire into a burning building without letting his fear get the best of him, it can allow a business owner to make decisions that might result in layoffs in order to keep a company going, and it can allow someone to point a gun at another human being, look into their face, and not only pull the trigger, but not have nightmares about it later.
For someone who is not part of that 2%, though almost ANYONE can, within certain circumstances, be desensitized and conditioned to pull the trigger when the time comes, the act of doing so or even simply being in a confrontation and experiencing, face to face, that type of violent hatred and aggression directed towards them from others is a great way to induce PTSD. In that regards, another concern I have is with the fact that women tend to be more empathetic than men. Overall, that's a great thing. In combat, too much empathy will literally break your mind. The last thing you want is to be experiencing, through mirror neurons, the pain and suffering of the people you have to kill.
The first point I am trying to get at is that I'd rather not see draftees of any type, male or female, in combat. I don't want to be dealing with psychological casualties when I should be focused on the enemy. The second is that, although I'm sure there are a few rare women out there who would make awesome front line soldiers, the politicians and other non-combatant decision makers better not force us through this transition with their heads up their asses or there will be serious consequences not so much in the form of increased casualties, but in the form of increased mental disorders, PTSD, suicide, and all the other things that go with sending people into combat who aren't psychologically prepared for it.
Another thing I wanted to hit on was the inevitable decrease in physical standards. I mean they're already talking about whether or not standards really NEED to be as high as they are and that maybe they can be lowered in some ways so that more females have a legitimate chance of making it, just as has been done in other jobs with physical requirements, such as being a firefighter. Here's the difference though: The nature of fire doesn't change, and it never will. We know exactly what we're dealing with, and exactly what is required in order to defeat it. Enemy combatants are entirely different. A popular saying within the combat arms is that somewhere out there, someone is training to kill you. This serves as incentive to train as hard as you can so when the time comes, you have the advantage. There is no specific requirement, only that when you come face to face with the enemy, you must be stronger and better trained if you are to survive. This means to insure victory, standards should be as high as we can possibly make them, even if it means casualties and injuries in training for those who just weren't meant to make it. If we compromise our standards in the name of being fair and they don't we end up with the disadvantage.
To summarize:
- I'm happy to have women in front line combat so long as they don't get there as a result of reduced standards, and so long as their physical and psychological differences are acknowledged and planned for in the midst of this transition.
- Draftees have no business in combat, and females have already been serving with distinction in support roles. So... opening the draft to females is fine, certain considerations accounted for, but it should be draftees of both sexes that are not allowed in combat arms. Well trained borderline sociopaths belong on the front line, not college kids who just want to go home. If we need people that bad, put them in support roles where they are unlikely to see combat. I don't even want to see them running convoys. Outside the wire they're little more than cannon fodder who will go home broken.
Let me start off by saying I have nothing against the concept of women in combat in and of itself. I'm not gonna say it doesn't make me nervous though.
The focus on the physical capabilities of women honestly makes me a bit worried because it reinforces what I already know, which is that this transition is likely to be spearheaded by people who have no freaking idea what front line combat entails. Yeah, women are physically weaker than men. But most men aren't cut out for combat either. Being physically capable is the absolute minimum requirement. What's on my mind are the mental aspects of it.
Back in WWI and WWII, it is estimated that 4 out of 5 people couldn't bring themselves to fire at the enemy even when their lives depended on it. Out of that 1/5 who did, most (whether consciously or unconsciously as a result of some intuitive aversion to killing), it was a very small percentage who did most of the killing. It's hard to measure exact numbers on the ground, but consider this: In the air, 1% of fighter pilots were responsible for 40% of enemy kills (If anyone finds this interesting, I encourage you to read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman). Without going into pages of data, to summarize the reason for this, roughly 2% if the population is born with the genetic makeup of a potential killer. These people end up as anything from special forces to firemen to successful businessmen or, under less than ideal circumstances, serial killers. These are the people who, for whatever reason, were born with the ability to take action without emotional consequence. It can allow a fireman to entire into a burning building without letting his fear get the best of him, it can allow a business owner to make decisions that might result in layoffs in order to keep a company going, and it can allow someone to point a gun at another human being, look into their face, and not only pull the trigger, but not have nightmares about it later.
For someone who is not part of that 2%, though almost ANYONE can, within certain circumstances, be desensitized and conditioned to pull the trigger when the time comes, the act of doing so or even simply being in a confrontation and experiencing, face to face, that type of violent hatred and aggression directed towards them from others is a great way to induce PTSD. In that regards, another concern I have is with the fact that women tend to be more empathetic than men. Overall, that's a great thing. In combat, too much empathy will literally break your mind. The last thing you want is to be experiencing, through mirror neurons, the pain and suffering of the people you have to kill.
The first point I am trying to get at is that I'd rather not see draftees of any type, male or female, in combat. I don't want to be dealing with psychological casualties when I should be focused on the enemy. The second is that, although I'm sure there are a few rare women out there who would make awesome front line soldiers, the politicians and other non-combatant decision makers better not force us through this transition with their heads up their asses or there will be serious consequences not so much in the form of increased casualties, but in the form of increased mental disorders, PTSD, suicide, and all the other things that go with sending people into combat who aren't psychologically prepared for it.
Another thing I wanted to hit on was the inevitable decrease in physical standards. I mean they're already talking about whether or not standards really NEED to be as high as they are and that maybe they can be lowered in some ways so that more females have a legitimate chance of making it, just as has been done in other jobs with physical requirements, such as being a firefighter. Here's the difference though: The nature of fire doesn't change, and it never will. We know exactly what we're dealing with, and exactly what is required in order to defeat it. Enemy combatants are entirely different. A popular saying within the combat arms is that somewhere out there, someone is training to kill you. This serves as incentive to train as hard as you can so when the time comes, you have the advantage. There is no specific requirement, only that when you come face to face with the enemy, you must be stronger and better trained if you are to survive. This means to insure victory, standards should be as high as we can possibly make them, even if it means casualties and injuries in training for those who just weren't meant to make it. If we compromise our standards in the name of being fair and they don't we end up with the disadvantage.
To summarize:
- I'm happy to have women in front line combat so long as they don't get there as a result of reduced standards, and so long as their physical and psychological differences are acknowledged and planned for in the midst of this transition.
- Draftees have no business in combat, and females have already been serving with distinction in support roles. So... opening the draft to females is fine, certain considerations accounted for, but it should be draftees of both sexes that are not allowed in combat arms. Well trained borderline sociopaths belong on the front line, not college kids who just want to go home. If we need people that bad, put them in support roles where they are unlikely to see combat. I don't even want to see them running convoys. Outside the wire they're little more than cannon fodder who will go home broken.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
That is all very good in theory. But there arent enough sociopaths and psychopaths to round up for a frontline force, and they might also not follow rules and do something to betray their own side. You would have to pay them a lot.
Perhaps a better idea is to stop having these stupid wars at all and actually grow up as a species.
Perhaps a better idea is to stop having these stupid wars at all and actually grow up as a species.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
I've heard that argument before yakherder but I'm not sure I buy it. On another board I used to frequent, the argument was a woman couldn't pull the trigger on an armed 12-year-old kid in the Middle East. The poster said women wouldn't be able to shoot a kid. Now, while I don't think I'm a sociopath and have no desire to kill anyone, I think I could blow someone away without guilt if the only other result was they were going to kill me or someone else. And that includes child soldiers. I've also been stalked before and while my life was never in danger, it did go through my mind that I *would* kill the guy if I ever had to, if he took it to the next level. If it's between him and me, I'm saving myself, no guilt. But who knows. Maybe I am a sociopath deep down. I know I would have trouble if I ever killed an innocent person accidentally though.
yakherder
老外
You'd be surprised. With funding likely to be cut, and with the nature of conflict moving more towards numerous small scale counterinsurgency type conflicts, we're moving more towards an increased use of well trained commando type units and away from massive deployments, which again emphasizes the need to recruit the right type of people but less of them.
And for the record I am one of those people, and I didn't realize it until I started trying to live the civilian life. As far as I'm concerned the biggest mistake I made was leaving active duty. The second my enlistment ends with the guard, I'm either joining the Canadian Forces or returning to the U.S. Army. I've volunteered for every deployment I've been on in recent years because, to be honest, civilian life is slowly driving me insane despite the fact that, in theory, everything is going well for me. I am not unique in this mindset either. 2% is more than enough to make an effective force, especially since they don't really even need to be aggressively recruited. I've been pestering the recruiter in Montreal for info on Canadian infantry pretty much since the day I got here.
And while I can understand your desire for war to stop, and I realize I'm probably not making a popular statement, as long as we live in a resource based world I don't think there is any other way. Everything about our day to day lives is dependent on resource competition. Even the universities that breed anti-war activists are financially dependent on investments in companies built on cheap resources from areas kept impoverished by war and genocide. From what I've seen a nation essentially has three choices. Fight for their interests, ally themselves with other nations who will fight for their interests, or stop playing the game and eventually end up as one of those previously mentioned regions who fall under the domination of anyone who wants a piece of them.
Sorry if my opinion seems less then optimistic, but a quick look at the history books hasn't given me reason to expect peace anytime soon. 30 years from now we'll probably be defending minerals on Antarctica and/or Mars or indirectly enslaved by whoever beat us at the game.
yakherder
老外
It doesn't necessarily have to be black and white. We all have some sociopathic tendencies. Some of us just have too many of them.
yakherder
老外
And sorry if I'm distracting from the topic. I'll probably wake up tomorrow wishing I had just avoided it :/
yakherder
老外
I suppose it's a matter of semantics. I'm just saying that statistically speaking, most people can't do it without structured desensitization and, out of those who do, most will suffer severe psychological consequences afterwards. I'm certainly no expert on the subject though, just regurgitating a combination of stuff I've read and things I've seen.I don't consider being willing to kill to save yourself sociopathic but if that's the case, then I have sociopathic tendencies I guess. I can live with that.
I don't think you should regret having posted in this thread. I always find your posts interesting and thought provoking.
I have heard other soldiers say that they would not want to be in combat next to someone who had been conscripted, and that has always made sense to me. But I do think that there are many duties that could be carried out by conscripts without putting their fellow soldiers' lives at risk.
I'm with Wolfie - I could kill in self defense, or in defense of someone toward whom I felt protective, without any hesitation. I will go futher and say that I could kill in anger. I very, very rarely get angry, but when I do, it comes from the core of me, and the consequences to those who are dependent on me is the only thing that constrains me.
I have heard other soldiers say that they would not want to be in combat next to someone who had been conscripted, and that has always made sense to me. But I do think that there are many duties that could be carried out by conscripts without putting their fellow soldiers' lives at risk.
I'm with Wolfie - I could kill in self defense, or in defense of someone toward whom I felt protective, without any hesitation. I will go futher and say that I could kill in anger. I very, very rarely get angry, but when I do, it comes from the core of me, and the consequences to those who are dependent on me is the only thing that constrains me.
yakherder
老外
Absolutely. Most roles, especially outside of the Army/Marines, do not involve combat, and the majority of those serving, even those with multiple deployments, have not been in combat.
Also, to add to what I was saying early (unrelated to this reply), infantry is one of the easier slots for recruiters to fill. This may come as a surprise to most people, but there are more people who want to do the job than there are slots available. This is even more true in Canada, where there is a lot of competition for infantry and other combat arms roles. It's hard to get into it without a bachelor's degree, and there have always been a steady flow of Canadians heading to the U.S. when the Canadian Forces wasn't able to offer them the action they were looking for. During Vietnam, for every draft dodger fleeing to Canada, there was a Canadian coming the opposite direction to fill their place voluntarily.
If we ever end up severely short on manpower for some reason, I'd rather see us introduce a foreign legion type of service, much like what France has, than bring back the draft.
ledboots
Peace
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Yakherder's comments reminds me of an Iron Maiden song...
Kill for gain or shoot to maim
But we don't need a reason
The Golden Goose is on the loose
And never out of season
Some blackened pride still burns inside
This shell of bloody treason
Here's my gun for a barrel of fun
For the love of living death.
[Chorus]
The killer's breed or the demon's seed,
The glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain,
But don't you pray for my soul anymore.
Two minutes to midnight
The hands that threaten doom.
Two minutes to midnight
To kill the unborn in the womb.
The blind men shout let the creatures out
We'll show the unbelievers
The napalm screams of human flames
Of a prime time Belsen feast, yeah!
As the reasons for the carnage cut their meat and lick the gravy,
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
[Chorus]
The body bags and little rags of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put the finger right on you.
As the madmen play on words and make us all dance to their song,
To the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun.
[Chorus]
Midnight, all night
Kill for gain or shoot to maim
But we don't need a reason
The Golden Goose is on the loose
And never out of season
Some blackened pride still burns inside
This shell of bloody treason
Here's my gun for a barrel of fun
For the love of living death.
[Chorus]
The killer's breed or the demon's seed,
The glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain,
But don't you pray for my soul anymore.
Two minutes to midnight
The hands that threaten doom.
Two minutes to midnight
To kill the unborn in the womb.
The blind men shout let the creatures out
We'll show the unbelievers
The napalm screams of human flames
Of a prime time Belsen feast, yeah!
As the reasons for the carnage cut their meat and lick the gravy,
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.
[Chorus]
The body bags and little rags of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put the finger right on you.
As the madmen play on words and make us all dance to their song,
To the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun.
[Chorus]
Midnight, all night
Similar threads
