US Women: Would you sign up for the selective service if required?

[kibbleforlola]

Just to clarify, this thread is about women being drafted in general, right? Not about being drafted to specifically fill combat roles. Of course this thread morphed into 'should women serve in combat'; but remember, there are lots and lots of jobs a person can do in the army.

Also, this "women are too empathetic, women are to this, women are too that" smacks of biological determinism, and I just don't buy it. Sure, men and women are socialized different - starting the moment we are born; but we aren't inherently different just by virtue of being born female.

 

[mlp]

we aren't inherently different just by virtue of being born female.

debate
I'm actually not so sure of that, having lived with and closely observed quite a few nonhuman animals in my lifetime. (And I do think that the behavior of nonhuman animals can give us some insight into the nature vs. nurture debate with respect to humans.)

However, much as we like to make generalizations about various groups, individual differences always trump, IMO.

Also, even if we assume that females generally tend to be more empathetic than males rather than looking at traits on an individual basis, such empathy isn't necessarily universal, nor does is necessarily translate into some kind of generfalized softheadedness/failure to take action - quite the opposite, in many cases. The female is indeed often dealier than the male in protecting what is hers/doing what is necessary for survival.

 

[kibbleforlola]

debate
I'm actually not so sure of that, having lived with and closely observed quite a few nonhuman animals in my lifetime. (And I do think that the behavior of nonhuman animals can give us some insight into the nature vs. nurture debate with respect to humans.)

I agree, generally, but could we not also be viewing their behaviors through a biased lense? I.e. we expect a male cat to behave a certain way, so we see all his actions as fitting into that box...etc.

There was this study done where two groups of people watched a video of a baby being startled by a noise, and then they were asked to describe the baby's crying. One group were told the baby was a boy, and they used words like "angry" to describe the crying. The other group was told the baby was a girl, and the most common word used by them was "scared" to describe the crying. Same baby, same crying - different perceptions.

However, much as we like to make generalizations about various groups, individual differences always trump, IMO.

Also, even if we assume that females generally tend to be more empathetic than males rather than looking at traits on an individual basis, such empathy isn't necessarily universal, nor does is necessarily translate into some kind of generfalized softheadedness/failure to take action - quite the opposite, in many cases. The female is indeed often dealier than the male in protecting what is hers/doing what is necessary for survival.

Completely agree

 

[mlp]

I agree, generally, but could we not also be viewing their behaviors through a biased lense? I.e. we expect a male cat to behave a certain way, so we see all his actions as fitting into that box...etc.

There was this study done where two groups of people watched a video of a baby being startled by a noise, and then they were asked to describe the baby's crying. One group were told the baby was a boy, and they used words like "angry" to describe the crying. The other group was told the baby was a girl, and the most common word used by them was "scared" to describe the crying. Same baby, same crying - different perceptions.

Oh, I'm sure that there's an observational bias - it's probably not possible to avoid that completely. But, for example, here are some generalizations I can make about cats after having lived with well over fifty:

A female cat who has raised a litter of kittens before being spayed and brought into the house will tend to live much more contentedly as one of a group of cats than a female who has not, unless that female came into the household as a kitten and grew up in the group.

Female cats have a significantly greater need for a personal space, a space of their own, than neutered males. This is true whether the female has raised a litter of kittens or not, or whether she entered the household as an adult or as a kitten - they just tend to spend more time solitary.

The affections of a female cat, when given, tend to be fiercer, more focused on one specific human, than the affections of a male cat, neutered or not. Males, if friendly, tend to be fairly readily friendly toward all/most humans they know. However, I have seen long term close friendships between neutered males, but not between females (other than mother/daughter pairings) - again, that greater need for solitude that I have found in female cats.

Now, those generalizations don't necessarily mirror assumptions about females and males in human society. That's why I think that the observation of social interactions and gender behavior in nonhumans is valuable in trying to understand nature/nurture issues - the behaviors/general personalities of females versus males are different in different species, thus helping to minimize observational bias/assumptions.

 

[mlp]

The shooting of Chris Kyle today got me reading a bit about snipers. Interestingly, the Soviet army had 2000 female snipers during WWII, of whom 500 survived the war. One of them, with 309 kills, is considered the most successful female sniper in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko In comparison, Kyle, the most successful sniper in American history, had 160 confirmed kills, with 255 claimed kills.

I think we forget that women have long served in combat, including women disguised as men in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War in the U.S.

 

[yakherder]

Granted, there are a lot more targets for a sniper to choose from when dealing with a large scale invasion than there are when hunting down insurgents, but I still agree completely. Snipers were a critical component of both sides during the city warfare taking place at this time, and in a fight for survival Russia made the wise decision to put a rifle in the hands of anyone that could shoot it regardless of sex. There was a German sniper who had over 500 confirmed kills, and the woman you just mentioned, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, was the one responsible for taking him out.

I think the critical difference between snipers like Chris Kyle and the women snipers in WWII Russia is that in Russiathere was little room for being picky. They were in a fight for survival and things weren't looking good, and it was the battlefield that decided who was fit to fight and who wasn't, and many women did indeed prove themselves. In the case of the U.S., like I mentioned it isn't the idea of women in combat in and of itself that bothers me, it is the politics that runs the risk of crippling our selection process.

There was a girl in my previous unit that I often think of as an example when considering women that would have been fit for combat. When she wasn't on the range making all the guys look stupid, she was in the gym. I'm not gonna say she was as physically strong as the guys in terms of her ability to haul weight, which is a critical factor in modern combat, but on her Army physical fitness test she did about 120 pushups in 2 minutes even though 46 would have been enough for a female of her age group to gain the maximum number of points, while doing 17 would have been enough to pass, so she was far from weak. Ironically, she was a Russian immigrant lol. Girls like this are incredibly rare, but I'd be happy to see them in combat.