Why? What did we ever do to men?
They probably think this is equality, but it's obviously not a good idea to have a woman go up in combat against a man 10x stronger than her
>What did we ever do to men?
>have a woman go up in combat against a man 10x stronger than her
Does anyone else smell male bait here or is it just me.
The average civilian's opinion on military affairs is pretty worthless
I'd be exempt but my little sister's absolutely terrified about the draft requiring women to register by the time she comes of age. I know it's definitely going to happen eventually, especially with how much perfect equality is being pushed, but I just hope it isn't for another decade or so.
Sure, males not holding as much power over us is nice and all but I think they can just keep this to themselves…
Men could ask you the same thing.
Feminists want true equality. Not all women are feminists.
I think we should be up for draft too. It's only fair.
Why do you believe women should not join selective service and not vote?
nta but I think only married couples should be allowed to vote. And they only get one vote.
I've always agreed tbh, although it is now causing me some real fear with there being a possible war (I've dual citizenship and though I don't live in the states and probably never will again, it still made me anxious for a hot second), I will stand by my opinion.
I want equality and that includes bad things.
What is your reasoning for that? To encourage marriage? Because married people view society differently?
Single people are impacted by laws and pay taxes too.
>>45486>To encourage marriage?
Yes>Because married people view society differently?
Also, because I hate politics aimed at either men or women. It reeks to me of intersex conflict, and I think that having a couple get one vote and thus each vote being informed by a man and a woman would ease that.
>>45480>only married couples should be allowed to vote
terrible idea, it would just lead to more unhappy marriages and abuse
also drafting is fascism, textbook at that, and shouldn't exist for either gender
>>45489>also drafting is fascism
Can we please not use buzzwords like this? It's already enough like tumblr here with girls whining about racism and trannys begging to be accepted.
If women have to be drafted, who will man the homefront? Who will work in the hospitals and tend to the wounded? Who will keep the country running in the soldier's stead?
Well men did all that in vietnam, the last draft.
Here's the real question: Why would men want to keep the disadvantages of being a man if the benefits of being a man have/are being removed or given equally to women?
I doubt most men actually want women to be drafted, they just think it's unfair that they have to be drafted with no compensation in return.
They wouldn't. That's why so many of them want to be women now.
Drafted women on the front lines is probably worse than having no one there. If you get drafted you'll probably end up in the adimistrative/logistical side of things, or maybe working in a field hospital. I wouldn't be too worried.
Fascism isn't a buzzword just because people use it as one. Do you want to explain to me how drafting isn't fascism? Forcing your people to engage in combat is as authoritarian as it gets
See? Now you're implying fascism = authoritarianism.
Fascism is a specific ideology exemplified by 1920s-1940s Italy. If you mean authoritarianism, say authoritarianism. And before you say >but fascism is authoritarian!
That doesn't mean the two are synonyms.
I see no issue with this.
But roles should fit the person. There are women who are capable in combat and others who anyone would be stupid to trust with a gun or heavy machinery. Issue is current drafting results in so many fucking idiots as is (military family… the shitty stories and complaints are nonstop about the bar of entry being so low) that I have to wonder if the guys that voted "yes" really want to double that outcome.
Of the 38% of men and 61% of women who did not vote yes, I wonder how many would claim to support equality.
Women shouldn’t be drafted because the draft for anyone shouldn’t exist. That being said, it’ll never happen in the US because of the amount of people who already signed up or enlisted. Also anyone who says that wanting both genders to be drafted is “””feminist””” is an actual retard.
Conscription is democratic, and has historically been considered an essential part of a healthy democracy–this tradition goes back to the Athenian democracy, but also includes the modern Scandinavian social democracies.
Revolutionary France might not have invented the practice but they were the best at it; they created the form of society built around industrial conscription that was then taken for granted by the entire world.
Universal education and universal conscription have always been tied together, even before the young French democracy brought it to a more perfect form; the early industrial state of Prussia had already permanently linked the two.
The general understanding had always been that the full matriculation of a citizen began with compulsory education and terminated with the end of his period of mandatory conscription service.
It does not do to give the Fascists too much credit in the establishment of actually functional social institutions, especially not social institutions tied to universal education and the improvement of social integration and a reduction in general social alienation.
Women should not have a mandatory draft because they are more valuable to maintaining national birthrate than men. It is not an issue of equality, but one of reason. Regardless the US has enough voluntary soldiers that a draft is unlikely for anyone.
>>45518In my view, if there's going to be an army, I think it ought to be a citizens' army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the top brass, they don't want a citizens' army. They want a mercenary army, what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And in fact, in the Vietnam War, the U.S. military realized, they had made a very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizens' army to fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that kind of a thing. For that, you need the French Foreign Legion, the Gurkhas or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often drawn from the country that they're attacking, like England ran India with Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That's the standard way to run imperial wars. They're just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officers. The whole thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And that's why I think that they're not going to have a draft. That's why I'm in favor of it. If there's going to be an army that will fight brutal, colonial wars… it ought to be a citizens' army so that the attitudes of the society are reflected in the military.
Women are 50% of society and the citizenry, and we cannot trust a professional soldier class to reflect the interests of our class. Mercenaries might fight more effectively than militias but that is not the only concern to be had with the social organization of a military–hell, that's almost certainly not even the first
concern of a modern state given the highly technological nature of modern military combat, and social instability as a result of population depletion is only a concern in the sorts of total and absolute wars that have not been fought since the Red Army raised the red flag over Berlin.
How so? Given that society pairs 1:1, men and women are equally as important for maintaining the national birthrate. If you had men going around impregnating more than one woman at a time, you would be able to make this argument.
Who needs more white babies when we can just import all the labor?
What's funny is that these men will sperg about how much stronger and faster men are, then do a complete 180 and say women should be thrown into combat the same way men are.
Am I seriously the only one on this board who thinks it's kinda fucked up that men have to sign their lives away to the government? If I were in their position I'd probably have the same "if I have to suffer, we all have to suffer" mindset. The concept of a male only draft runs directly counter to equality, I'm shocked how many of you are OK with it.
>>45513>anyone who says that wanting both genders to be drafted is “””feminist””” is an actual retard.
It's not directly feminist. But the average online feminist demands equality among genders. Ergo, if they complain about or have doubts about women being drafted like some of the (supposedly female) posters here do, they'd be major hypocrites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_Soviet_Union#Conscription_of_Women>The increased female presence in the armed forces during WWII also led to an improvement in sanitary conditions. On the 11th of April 1943 it was ordered that soap rations for women personnel be increased to 100 grams per month, 50% more than their male counterparts.
Being drafted wouldn't mean you'd be forced to go infantry.
If anything, women would wind up being the ones getting the comfy jobs off the front lines. Which means more men for the infantry. How is that a bad thing?
how does that show an improvement in sanitary conditions? i only see an increase in required resources
Because men (and a lot of women too) tend to have a reductive view of gender equality, they only see equality in it's abstract form, instead of being against compulsory military service for everyone, they avoid the problem all together and focus on "equality" instead.
You see this talking point taken to it's extreme in a lot of MGTOW activits rhetoric, I remember once reading an article of them unironically suggesting that more women should kill themselves because male suicide is higher on average.
>having the audacity to ask that
why the fuck would you want weaker people to defend you? are us men trying to kill the enemy with laughter?
clarifying that by "us" I mean united states, i'm not a moid
This is why society looks down on us so much, not because of intelectual or phisical treats, but the never ending whining and MUH HUSBAND SHOULD DO IT IM TOO DELICATE AND BEAUTIFULL
God I hate comunism but women in the soviet army we're so awsome, drafting is something the goverment should do under crisis only, and every one should be avaible to go and risk their Life's un war, no moid want to be there, neither us, but we do not fight with swords anymore, everybody can go and pull a trigger.
You all just won't let go your privilages.
Also in societies like Israel, doméstic and street violence against women is rare since they all did the regular army training and could beat the shit out of any random creep.
>>45628>but we do not fight with swords anymore, everybody can go and pull a trigger.
Strength requirements are actually much higher now because soldiers carry so much gear. Healthy men in the prime of their life get their (stronger) joints messed up due to the huge amount of stuff they have to carry.
The weapon and basic stuff cannot be heavier than 10 pounds. Professional soldiers carry more things, draft soldiers are not expected to do things that way, water, food, assault gun. And thats it.
I know moids are ussually stronger, but today real soldiers are made of bravery and accuracy.
This post is utterly disconnected from reality.
Bandages, alcohol, radio, amunition
Drafting is something the goverment do when pro soldiers are not enough/to expensive. Compare the gear a navy seal uses with the basic stuff of an american soldier in WWII. You can spend thousands of dolars per capita if the army is small. If you draft then you may need way more people. Sometimes I forget you are all first worlders.
The US army today isn't small, and there's no reason why you wouldn't issue them armor and other assorted gear even if they were drafted. I have no clue why you assume any western country would send a soldier with a rifle and a first aid kit.
My point is that drafting should only be used under emergencies. Like living in Korea or Israel, or even worst, sudden invassion. You can give every citizen a gun, not full gear and lots of suplies.
If you live in a rich country good for ya, not everybody is so lucky.
Also, not every one should do the same tasks, the weakest ones can be pilots, medics, drivers, engineers, etc.
Armyfag here. 90% of those who serve are pogs and not (((light))) infantry who bust their knees. Most, if not all women would just be just crewing guns, driving vehicles etc etc. People assigned to those roles tend to put up weight after basic also. I'm not saying its easy but everyone physically normal can do it.>>45636>Drafting is something the goverment do when pro soldiers are not enough/to expensive.
Also, drafted soldiers tend to be of an much higher quality than professional ones. When you draft millions you have so much room to be picky and discard those who are unfit. You would think paying volunteers would produce a better soldier but people who are smart and able tend not soldier much anyways. Also, the pay is pretty shit compared to the risks so you have to lower standards to meet quotas or the system comes down.>You can give every citizen a gun, not full gear and lots of suplies.
Drafting is the optimal strategy regardless of the actual state of security and is more commonly called as "conscription". The reason it's not widely implemented is that it's a political suicide, freedom of the people override the interests of the state during peace.
Also, there will never be an situation where people would just be "given a rifle". That has only happened in the fanatical cults of Adolf and Tojo.
I forgot to mention that drafting/conscripting a competent 1st world army itself is way way more expensive than mere professional army for obvious reasons. Lost wages, more people going in and out the system in yearly basis, healthcare for soldiers etc etc. Sure, conscripting could be cheaper in some totalitarian a-hole but here you have families to answer to. You have to run a drafted army with the same standards (and in actuality higher) as a paid one.
Not all combat is equal. It doesn't take brawns to lob missiles and if the launcher gets stuck ain't nobody unstucking it, man or a woman. There are so so many combat roles that could be filled without acing a physical exam. Nothing stops you from being a door gunner.
I think that if the drafting women along with men is equal. Would I want it? No, but I recognize that it is indeed equal.
I also know that while there are plenty of jobs in the military a women can do as well as a man there are some jobs that a man can physically do better.
I just think that the physical standard should be equal. If women can pass the physical standards then nothing should hold them back from the career field they want.
That being said, an army special forces green beret or a navy seal is going to (and should) have different physical standards than someone in a supply or intelligence job.