With women in combat roles, a federal court rules male-only draft unconstitutional

a reply to: TexasTruth

Have you seen 17 year boys? They’re just as immature. If you can’t stomach it maybe you should start including abolishing the draft entirely in your reasons to vote for someone.

This really isn't as much about gender, as it is human resources.

As someone who has managed people for a good portion of my life, I don't look at gender first in determining someones role in the workforce. I look at strengths and weaknesses of individuals. Some people have good organizational skills and others excel at monotonous tasks. The idea is to utilize the strengths of the people under you, and minimize their weaknesses through training where it's applicable.

I personally don't like the draft, because wars are rarely justified, but women are not only able to serve, they will excel in some areas just like some men do. Not every man is fit for front line combat, and neither is every woman.

Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Women have been conscripted into the IDF for years. Does this mean our women are somehow inferior to theirs?

originally posted by: Klassified
This really isn't as much about gender, as it is human resources.

As someone who has managed people for a good portion of my life, I don't look at gender first in determining someones role in the workforce. I look at strengths and weaknesses of individuals. Some people have good organizational skills and others excel at monotonous tasks. The idea is to utilize the strengths of the people under you, and minimize their weaknesses through training where it's applicable.

I personally don't like the draft, because wars are rarely justified, but women are not only able to serve, they will excel in some areas just like some men do. Not every man is fit for front line combat, and neither is every woman.

That is the reality in a nutshell, but I think the ugly truth here is, what another poster on this thread mentioned, that as long as people look at other people through that discriminatory gender lens, then the problems arising with putting capable women in traditional men's military roles will be an uphill (hopefully) battle.

It would be kinda silly to send a large portion of people off to war who could better serve their country by being able to reproduce. If we went to war and lost a large portion of women it would effect the country if we survive for decades to come. This is basic reproduction.

a reply to: Lumenari

I do spend a lot of time in my kitchen and I make sammies too.
My breeding days are loooong gone seeing I am 64.I did try getting
into the army in 1974 an unplanned pregnancy changed that.

I don't like the idea of 18 year old girls having to sign up for draft.
My opinion,they should only join if they want to serve.I think
many will not go into military service and will desert.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TexasTruth

Have you seen 17 year boys? They’re just as immature. If you can’t stomach it maybe you should start including abolishing the draft entirely in your reasons to vote for someone.

Yes, I have on of those as well. He’s 14 and can shoot every gun in the house. I have tried with my wife and daughter but they just aren’t really interested in those type things.
I realize there are exceptions to every rule, but for the majority of 18 year olds, a boy is better equipped for combat. Anybody who denies that fact are lying to themselves.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
It would be kinda silly to send a large portion of people off to war who could better serve their country by being able to reproduce. If we went to war and lost a large portion of women it would effect the country if we survive for decades to come. This is basic reproduction.

Would that be a conscientious objection that would be recognized? If so, then a man could also claim that he could better serve his country by being a 'reproducer'. Either way, anyone having a "legitimate" (who defines what is and what is not legitimate?) moral or religious objection (this includes pacifism) will be assigned a non-combat role, it appears.

There are currently legal provisions in the United States for recognizing conscientious objection, both through the Selective Service System and through the Department of Defense. The United States recognizes religious and moral objections, but not selective objections. Conscientious objectors in the United States may perform either civilian work or noncombatant service in lieu of combatant military service.[88] Historically, conscientious objectors have been persecuted in the United States. After the Selective Service System was founded during World War I, such persecutions decreased in frequency, and recognition for conscientious objectors grew.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Look into the two main conflicts between Rome and the Celts for starters. Roman soldiers not only had respect for female Celtic warriors, but even feared them. An article and a link to get you started...
Ancient Celtic Women...

A Celtic woman is often the equal of any Roman man in hand-to-hand combat. She is as beautiful as she is strong. Her body is comely but fierce. The physiques of our Roman women pale in comparison.

A whole band of foreigners will be unable to cope with one [Gaul] in a fight, if he calls in his wife, stronger than he by far and with flashing eyes; least of all when she swells her neck and gnashes her teeth, and poising her huge white arms, begins to rain blows mingled with kicks, like shots discharged by the twisted cords of a catapult.

That last one may be a bit overstated, but it gives you an idea of how fearsome these ladies were in the eyes of the Romans. Also note, the Gallic wars, as well as subsequent conflicts were won with strategy, not brute force against the Celts.

Also look into a female warrior and queen named Boudica...

She slaughtered a Roman army. She torched Londinium, leaving a charred layer almost half a meter thick that can still be traced under modern London. According to the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, her army killed as many as 70,000 civilians in Londinium, Verulamium and Camulodunum, rushing ‘to cut throats, hang, burn, and crucify.

Boudica

I think it is long past time we start treating women equally.

I say good for the judge!

Get going on selective service! (Ladies first! )

a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for the info. Sounds like such is a minority throughout history.

In our modern civilization, you would be right for the most part, but it was not always the case. Social constructs have changed per culture.

a reply to: Irishhaf

considering that this was one of the primary concerns raised over the passage of the ERA Amendment, I guess it means it's time to bring the ERA back into the discussion more than it has been and get it passed....
ya know before the conservatives manage to pass laws and amendments granting those few cells in the women's body more rights than the women has??
remember guys, equal means equal, which means...
equal in the family court system!

a reply to: InTheLight

I think Genghis Khan wound disagree with you on the males are just as important as females per reproduction. If a country were to lose a large percent of women then for decades to come that country would be under populated.

Females are the backbone of a country.

Only a seriously weakened and mentally unfit country would send a large portion of women off to war.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for the info. Sounds like such is a minority throughout history.

Not as much as you might think. This is a topic I have spent some time on. In Europe especially, there is a long history of capable women warriors, but not only in Europe. Do the research, you might be surprised. Nevertheless, the one difference I have seen is the reason women fight as opposed to the reason men fight. Women are slower to war and conflict, but once they're in, they're in all the way.

a reply to: dug88

Why do you need to draft anyone nevermind there sex?

What poor brown people are getting it this time?

I guess while we are at it we could also draft children and put them in non combat roles.



Surely none of you want to discriminate against children.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: InTheLight

I think Genghis Khan wound disagree with you on the males are just as important as females per reproduction. If a country were to lose a large percent of women then for decades to come that country would be under populated.

Females are the backbone of a country.

Only a seriously weakened and mentally unfit country would send a large portion of women off to war.

Why do you think a large portion of women would be put in a combat role?

Also, not all men could be considered equal as valuable reproducers.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: dug88

As a woman Vet, two observations...

First, if we all want to be equal then we should all be equal. Draft for everyone if we ever (God forbid) have to, signing up for selective service should be for every citizen of the US that hits 18 years of age.

Second, women have been in combat roles the last 40 years or so at least.. we're just not allowed to talk about it.

So let's get this ball rolling.

We agree on something

I've been pro gender-equal opportunity and draft (if needed) for a long time.

At 72 years of age - - I've experiened enough denials just for being female.