Senate approves draft for women as well as men

[Hydra009]

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/congress-women-military-draft.html

“The fact is,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, “every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that women did not have to register for the draft, noting that they should not face the same requirements as men because they did not participate on the front lines of combat. But since Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said in December that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women, military officials have told Congress that women should also sign up for the draft.

“It’s my personal view,” Gen. Robert B. Neller, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, that with the complete lifting of the ban on women in combat roles, “every American who’s physically qualified should register for the draft.”

Needless to say, as an egalitarian, I'm thrilled by the news.  I believe that women shouldn't be barred from any occupation on the basis of sex, and that includes military service.

It wasn't too long ago that black soldiers were barred from serving with white soldiers or gay soldiers from serving period (or forced to keep their homosexuality hush-hush).  Now, women are finally achieving equal standing in the military.  We're heading, in fits and starts, to a more egalitarian society where men and women have more equal rights and responsibilities.  Great news.

But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that equality has its opponents - both on the left and the right - who would take us down a different path, a more unequal union.  Their expected tantrums over this are going to be hilarious.  I'll grab the popcorn.

[drunkenshoe]

Good. *Applause.

[widdershins]

My wife has been bitching about this for years.  It turns out women don't want to be viewed as gentle, helpless flowers who need men to protect them from the harsh world around them.  Who would have guessed?

[Nonsensei]

The cynic in me can't help but notice that this happens only now, in a time when conventional warfare of a scale large enough to require a draft is a dinosaur of a bygone era. These days a conflict serious enough to require a draft could only happen between superpowers and would be settled with nuclear weapons.

[stromboli]

Long years ago there might have been some argument against based on protecting the breeding stock or something, but that is irrelevant now. Women want to serve in the military they can get drafted too.

[Hydra009]

First catch of the day:

Concerned Women for America (right-wing evangelical group with a special emphasis on women's issues.  So basically, barefoot and pregnant)

We have gone from debating whether or not women should serve in combat to some advocating that they should be forced to serve in combat. Leadership should know better than to disregard basic biology in order to embrace political correctness.

Our military’s sole purpose is to protect our nation, not to serve as this administration’s laboratory for social engineering.

We firmly believe in the equality of men and women, but that does not require us to ignore the physical differences and unique risks to women in combat particularly in the case of capture. The female draft discussion should revolve around combat readiness, efficiency, and national security, and weeding through applicants that are overwhelmingly biologically unable to meet combat standards would be a logistical nightmare and would force the lowering of combat standards.

We strongly support the heroic, capable, and honorable women who chose and will choose to serve our country in the military. However, this issue centers around whether or not women are to be forced to register to serve in tip-of-spear combat roles should our nation reinstate the draft. Forcing women to serve in combat against their will is a deep departure in U.S. policy. Uncle Sam needs to keep his hands off of our daughters.

They say that they "believe in equality" with an awful lot of buts.  So many buts that I'm doubtful they really mean it.

There's the ol' rape argument, which implies that torture/rape of male POWs is acceptable but torture/rape of female POWs is unacceptable.  Also, the argument that women's biology renders them too dainty for service, which is demonstrably false and belied by their acknowledgement that women volunteers already serve and are capable at their jobs.

They also accuse the administration of "social engineering" and "political correctness".

All in all, just what I'd expect from the conservatives.

[Nonsensei]

First catch of the day:

Concerned Women for America (right-wing evangelical group with a special emphasis on women's issues.  So basically, barefoot and pregnant)
They say that they "believe in equality" with an awful lot of buts.  So many buts that I'm doubtful they really mean it.

There's the ol' rape argument, which implies that torture/rape of male POWs is acceptable but torture/rape of female POWs is unacceptable.  Also, the argument that women's biology renders them too dainty for service, which is demonstrably false and belied by their acknowledgement that women volunteers already serve and are capable at their jobs.

They also accuse the administration of "social engineering" and "political correctness".

All in all, just what I'd expect from the conservatives.

I think there's a pretty wide gulf between the sort of women who volunteer for military service, and the sort of women you would get from random selection of the population at large. Mentality aside, there is a real physical issue here. Modern soldiers are often required march 10 to 20 kilometers a day carrying loads that weigh as much as many women themselves do. Women typically have 40-50% less upper body strength than men, and I'm sorry but there's no sane argument that can put that reality to bed. And it matters in a function where lives may depend on your physical capabilities.

I was absolutely on board with opening up combat roles to women who wanted to volunteer because those women who were accepted would be the atypically physically gifted women capable of keeping pace with male soldiers. But a random selection from the population? Theres a little problem here, I think. I'm trying to imagine my co-worker Holly, whose thighs are not much thicker than my biceps, putting on 100 lbs of combat gear and hauling it ten miles. Theres nothing wrong with Holly. Shes doesn't have a health defect, shes not anorexic. Shes just happens to be a tiny woman, and under this new decision women like her might be called to combat.

So this makes me curious. In the event of a draft, will the fitness standards for women to be accepted be lowered, thus reducing the capabilities of our fighting force, or will the standards be the same as they are for men thus resulting in a large majority of women being rejected?

[Hydra009]

I don't anticipate a draft ever happening again and I anticipate war to be more and more mechanized, so I confess that looking into the physical standards hasn't been a big priority for me.  Presumably, conscripts would have to pass the same physical and lots of both men and women wouldn't make the cut, but women would disproportionately fail.  Though I suppose new gadgets like the powered exoskeleton might make natural strength a lot less of an issue.  If a draft ever becomes a pressing concern, I'll get back to you with a much more thorough answer.

[TomFoolery]

As many of you know, I'm both female and a veteran. All of the arguments against women being drafted always boil down to the same thing: can women do it and how will it affect male soldiers?

The answers to those questions are: 1) They already do and 2) It doesn't.

Most of the arguing is from people who have never served in the military and imagine the military is made up of nothing but 6'4", 225 pound, muscle bound, ground-pounding infantry jocks who eat live rattlesnakes for breakfast. Not only does this not fit the majority of soldiers, it doesn't even fit a sizable minority. There are people of all shapes and sizes serving, short, fat, tall, skinny, muscular, etc. Furthermore, there are troops serving with permanent injuries that can no longer wear body armor or go on ruck marches, and so they were reclassified into other lighter duty jobs and continue to serve.

People never stop to think that the military is more than just the infantry. Even if women weren't suited to going full Rambo on someone, it doesn't mean they can't (or don't) serve in some other capacity. And again, 20% of the military is currently made up of women.

Yet when these debates come up, many people act like no woman has ever donned a uniform and they forget that women have been serving heavily on the front lines of conflict for more than a decade. Some of them have died in combat, been decorated for valor in combat, and slogged through right alongside their male counterparts.

Time and again, two very specific scenarios are invoked: the one where someone wants to know how a tiny, 5 foot tall girl is going to carry a 220 pound man to cover in a firefight and the one where people want to know either how a woman will withstand torture and what it will do to her male comrades, having to watch/listen to her be hurt.

To the first thing: the military has minimum height and weight standards for joining. A male can be 5' tall and weigh a minimum of 97 pounds, and there are men serving who fit that description. Yet no one ever questions their right to serve, presumably because there's a penis attached. And so when someone points out that "women are just naturally smaller and weaker" and allowing them to serve weakens the military as a whole, all I can say is a giant "fuck you." That indirectly implies that I, as a 5'6", 130 pound female put other troops' lives in danger because I dared to serve in the military and was probably too small and weak to do my job. Furthermore, I recall one first aid training exercise when I watched a small-framed young male soldier struggle to drag a battle buddy to cover but was having a rough time of it in the desert heat with all his gear. So I grabbed the other side of the casualty's IOTV and we got it done together. It's easy to say, "well, there may not always be someone there to help!" but the military isn't made up of individuals. Anyone can contrive some awful slippery-slope scenario that involves having to single-handedly fight off 50 insurgents with nothing but a pocket knife and then demand to know if women would be able to handle it. She would probably handle it like anyone would, which is accept that she's fucked and grit her teeth and do the best she can. Just like a man would.

I want to know what sick fucks don't think that it would emotionally scar anyone to listen to anyone (regardless of gender) get tortured? Do men really sell their lives so cheaply that they think it wouldn't bother them to listen to their male buddies get flayed alive or beheaded with a pocketknife? They insist that men would die like lemmings trying to rescue a female who was injured or being tortured, but I've seen male soldiers do that for other male soldiers in the line of fire: not because of gender and old-style chivalry but because that's what you do for your friends.

[Baruch]

The cynic in me can't help but notice that this happens only now, in a time when conventional warfare of a scale large enough to require a draft is a dinosaur of a bygone era. These days a conflict serious enough to require a draft could only happen between superpowers and would be settled with nuclear weapons.

The only reason anyone would talk about a draft, is because the Man is planning a fire-sale.  Good for you girl, now instead of being vaporized at home, you can be vaporized on a foreign battle field.

The proper thing to do would be to end the current draft law, and draft nobody.  Hope y'all like your egalitarian nuclear war ;-)

[Hydra009]

As many of you know, I'm both female and a veteran. All of the arguments against women being drafted always boil down to the same thing: can women do it and how will it affect male soldiers?

The answers to those questions are: 1) They already do and 2) It doesn't.

*slowclap*  I wish I could upvote this more than once.

[drunkenshoe]

The cynic in me can't help but notice that this happens only now, in a time when conventional warfare of a scale large enough to require a draft is a dinosaur of a bygone era. These days a conflict serious enough to require a draft could only happen between superpowers and would be settled with nuclear weapons.

Which provides exactly the same situation for men. If you are not a once drafted veteran, the cynic in you is not allowed to make an issue of this, just because you have a penis.

[marom1963]

Hopefully, there will be an exemption for mothers!

[TomFoolery]

Hopefully, there will be an exemption for mothers!

There isn't one for fathers.

Do you mean an exemption for people caring for dependents in general? Because there already is one for voluntary service. Single parents or people with certain dependents are ineligible to join the military.

[Nonsensei]

Which provides exactly the same situation for men. If you are not a once drafted veteran, the cynic in you is not allowed to make an issue of this, just because you have a penis.

So if i had a vagina and made this point it would be ok? True colors.