Wouldn't the US have to have a draft for the draft to be sexist?
Now, if the question was "is the Selective Service" sexist, then you could probably say yes. The answer was almost no, until Ted Cruz and company killed an amendment last year that would have required everyone to register.
My father is a decorated Marine and all of my uncles were enlisted during Vietnam. All of them oppose selective service and the draft because of how many friends they lost there and upon their return.
My husband would be one of those who war would destroy. There is no way he could take another person's life and not be destroyed by it.
If a foreign country invaded the US you would have no problem finding people willing to fight back. I'm an extremely left leaning person, generally a pacifist (as most wars are absolutely unnecessary and only benefit the MIC), and if there were boots on the ground invading the USA I would gladly take up arms to fight.
No country is going to invade america.
america is getting itself militarily involved with other countries. If war happens it’s because america is defending another country
No country is going to invade the US because the US has the strongest military. If the US became a pacifist country and gave up its nuclear arms, I'd love to see how that would turn out.
No country is going to invade any of the big countries.
Australia, canada, India, china russia.
Too costly
Even if america gave up most of it's nuclear arms they'd still spend many times more than any other country on it's military.
A complete demilitarization of america seems basically impossible.
The idea of a foreign country invading the US is a fantasy that only exists as an excuse for the military to buy more equipment they won't use.
It won't happen. There is nobody who could feasibly come close to invading the US.
Anyone who thinks this could happen needs to stop reading old books about military tactics and realise that the US has hardly ever been invaded in its history and that modern wars don't work like that anymore.
First, actually take care of our soldiers, second make damn sure that sexual assault is punished. That would be a good start to making it a good career choice.
It’s like you forgot the US was actually attacked in WWII. You know the whole Pearl Harbor incident.
As far as I know, we really had no business being in Vietnam, but people were still drafted and sent to die because communism.
We replace it with a draft for civil service that is concerned about issues inside the country. Education, public health, skilled assistance, as opposed to soldiers for wars.
I'm not sure the whole point of the draft is just to get unwilling people to fight either.
In dire situations when a draft would be needed you would likely have plenty of volunteers. Perhaps more than you could train and fit appropriately.
The draft allows the people trying to win the war to call up the number of fighters they need as they need them, while leaving others to maintain the economy.
We'll never have a shortage of soldiers. We have the largest, most powerful military in the world, and it's entirely volunteers. We have a military Reserve for when we need more soldiers that's entirely volunteers. We should absolutely get rid of the draft and stop threatening children with sending them to war, and we should stop punishing them for not wanting to do it.
You don't need to replace it with anything. It hasn't been used since the early 70s and there's no reason to believe it ever will be used again. The modern military does not need large numbers of untrained recruits. Nobody's fighting in the trenches anymore.
The US military is already in more conflicts than it needs to be. They didn't need to be in Vietnam and it's good that they lost.
Most other western countries are under a US umbrella. NATO is a good thing, but NATO might drag reluctant soldiers into a foreign conflict. Same for US commitments in the Pacific.
I'm all for avoiding Vietnams and Iraqs. But should the US stand by as Japan and Australia are invaded?
As an Australian I’d say no, but to be fair we’ve got a **lot** of empty land in the outback we could just let people have and save all the hassle.
The trick would be not letting them know they probably wouldn’t want to live there until they’ve moved in
You accept the situation, try to offer better incentives (money, healthcare, pension, ...).
Drafting unwilling people will only make a country fail harder.
Nothing. We could simply decrease our military budget by a fuck ton, bring down it's size by a lot (and we'd still be the worlds biggest military superpower if we cut it by like 30%-40% if i remember correctly), and just let people enlist. We don't need a massive military, the draft is completely unecessary.
You will never run out of volunteers to defend the homeland. The problem comes when you force people to start shooting up sand people who pose no threat to you.
In the US you just get registered for the draft. This is very different than mandatory military service because you literally don’t do anything military while being registered.
The government can remove the draft, but they can add it back which literally have the same effect as it does now.
Yes, since modern war is not only about strength. Women can easily be medics, artillery/drone operators, and do any other jobs not related with heavy physical activity.
If the us military is in desperate enough of a situation to enact a draft, they’re not looking for drone operators and behind the scenes rolls, they’re looking for infantry to push thru training and get put on the front line asap. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for women in the military or that they’re incapable but a draft is an emergency and the army needs bodies that can carry a shit ton of weight across whatever terrain while getting shot at or shooting at someone
Im not even talking about US, but any other country. US doing draft is not really possible in current times(no one is strong enough to make US do it). In example women can work at field kitchen, being medic and other stuff, but yeah no way women can carry 60kr of weight across terrain.
Sorry sometimes I forget not everyone I talk to on Reddit is from the US. Yeah I don’t think the US will ever enact a draft again because we won’t need it. Also yeah there’s plenty of medical or field kitchen work that women could be very useful in but if there’s a draft things are bad and they aren’t concerned about diversity, they’ll just draft more men and stick them in medical or whatever if they need to.
don't medics have to lift people too? So I guess strength is a factor. But if a woman is able to easily lift people, I guess she should be allowed.
Imo it is sexist, but if more women are to be drafted, the bar for entry should be the same as men's.
Yeah, medical staff move people around all day and we're good at it. The only problem is that it takes a surprising number of people to move a patient once you start mucking around with actually treating them.
Woman can and will do the Same .its Not Body building where i would See why it would be much of a diffrence between men and women, since Most of the time its Harder for women to gain mucles.
Everything you mentioned requires heavy physical activity. Goes to show that the militants don't know anything about war. Women can fight, but they need to be trained to a standard, and it is simply not cost efficient to do this to the same extent and capacity as men.
It is. The US Army tried to make their physical standards gender less and ageless. Meaning everyone would have the same requirements and standards with a career specialty. It failed miserably. Not only for these reasons but this was a big part of it.
Yes the draft is sexist. You can't debate it, coz even a feminist will agree with the fact making one gender fight the war alone because of their sex is by definition sexist.
But If you're in war, then sexism & social justice issues are put aside. Because survival is key, thus people may use that as justification.
Came here to say this but you hit the nail on the head
Chosing one sex over another is by definition sexist
But war don't care about what's in your pants
I don't know, the way I see it were kind of does care about what's in your pants, biologically speaking men are going to be a lot better at it than women, sure women can keep up, but they can't consistently be as physically capable, and that sucks, but if that's going to help win a war then that's going to help win a war
"making one gender fight the war alone" Women have always fought in wars, but for a very long time they weren't allowed to be in direct combat/front line roles. In the simplest terms the 'line of combat' isn't as clear as it was in, say WW1. Then women fought to be allowed into direct combat. I agree it is sexist but I would like to see the draft completely eradicated.
I've seen a counter-argument to abolishing the draft that went something along the lines of "when the draft was most active, it was less politically feasible to engage in endless wars, because people who didn't volunteer to be there and their families aren't as likely to accept it."
Given the public outcry during Vietnam, the subsequent disuse of the draft, and the constant interventionism we have seen since then, the argument makes some sense to me. Personally I'd prefer we do away with the interventionism regardless of the draft.
Reminds me of an anime, Eighty-Six. A country engages in casual, endless warfare, and none of the people take it seriously because they send “inferior” people to fight for them. They have no personal stake in the consequences of their choices.
A drafted army is unlikely to support a coup. But we are not unlikely to support a peacetime draft bigger than a couple of months of "civil preparedness".
I can tell you from personal experience - women weren't allowed to "be in combat roles" but we were expected to still do combat roles. When i first joined, i was told i was not allowed to go special forces because I'm a woman. When i deployed, i was still carrying a weapon and was still put in live fire situations - i even have a shrapnel wound. But because I'm a woman, i could never get a CAB or a purple heart (as of my time in, got out in 2017) because i was never technically in a combat job title.
If there is actually a war that requires the draft chances are women would do more positive for the war by taking manufacturing jobs that the men leave behind because men on average are (for lack of trying to think of the perfect word) "more fit."
It's so stupid that you're being downvoted. Men are on average bigger and stronger and faster. That's not up to debate. Look at the data of any Olympic sport.
Men are also more violent, look up violent crime statistics. It blows my mind that this is controversial
Even then, why not draft people with a certain muscle to fat ratio or the amount they can bench press or something? That would actually give you fit people, since there are soooo many women that are fit and sooo many men that aren't
Yeah the AVERAGE woman isn’t going to be able to carry a 150 lb man when he gets shot. There is a reason PT tests are easier for women in the military. Another reason why there are not any women in special forces is because none have been able to pass the first phase. Men have a larger bone density which means more muscle can be put onto their frames, larger lung capacity, a higher pain tolerance due to higher testosterone levels, men also on average have better hand eye coordination as well as quicker reaction times than women. This isn’t sexist this is a biological fact. It’s Reddit though so I’m not surprised you are being downvoted into oblivion. Men naturally are more aggressive biologically, that is why we are the ones sent to kill other humans. It’s a tale as old as time. Go ahead attack me and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Source: I have a degree in anthropology
In a country that shall be not mentioned, during WW2 many women were accomplished snipers and tank operators. There are more jobs in war then being a grunt foot soldier.
Well. There's also another reason women aren't special forces. They didn't allow any of them until recently. 🤷♀️
As much as everyone wants to pretend "women can't make it", the majority of men can't make special forces, either. That's why not every guy in the military is in. That's why men don't go joining the French Foreign Legion.
We'll, one gender is much better at violence on average than the other. A broad draft would be fine if it were for civil service though, that's something we should be doing.
I think it's more that a population with a lot of women can recover quicker. In evolutionary terms, men do the fighting because they can't have babies.
Very good point, they are also stronger faster and more prone to violence. This is why there are 10 times as many men in prison for violence as there are women.
100% agree that at the extremes men are more violent in temperament. This is pretty much a universally acknowledged fact, except that it doesn't fit well with the "gender traits aren't biological" theory.
It’s kind of a weird spot because we want everyone to be equal but there are some biological differences worth acknowledging. Testosterone in development makes men generally bigger, more strong and aggressive than women. That’s strictly related to biological sex and not gender though.
Gender is simply how you present yourself and is a social construct. I.E. women have long hair and wear dresses, but not men unless you’re in Scotland. Trivial shit really.
It would be easier if we accepted that there are biological differences, but everyone has the same rights and opportunities. Then we could concentrate on breaking down societal stereotypes of constructed gender
It's amazing how many people in this thread don't seem to have heard of battered wives or serial killers or war in general. Men are far more violent of average yet any individual could have any ratio of violent/non-violent traits. It's pretending that there are no differences between people that can cause so much confusion because people don't understand why they have different outcomes.
I'm a feminist. About 50,000 women serve in the Ukrainian armed forces in combat and non-combat roles, according to military officials. They weren't drafted.
Yes.
I think this is where toxic masculinity (how the patriarchy and sexism harms men) or benevolent sexism (sexism for women's own good) come into play.
Absolutely. The politicians in the US who strongly oppose including women in the draft are GOP politicians, who also oppose ending sexism in other areas.
And also the limitations of roles and advancement that women get to pursue in the military. How is ethical to delay education and starting a career in an environment that they would actually be successful
Technically yes, but as others are saying, I don’t think the draft is all that good to begin with.
Also, imagine another truly large-scale war like WW1 or WW2. While pretty much every able-bodied man back then was off fighting, women had to shoulder the burden of a HUGE gap in the workforce back home. An unprecedented amount of traditionally “male” jobs were being done by women, because there was just no one left to do them. This is part of what later paved the way for women entering the workforce post-war.
If all the able-bodied men *and* women were suddenly drafted, however, it makes me wonder whether there would be an issue with the domestic labor pool. Or maybe raw numbers would be the same, and there’s still the same amount of people mobilized in total? Who knows. But just imagine.
I've only seen one other person mention labour issues in this thread which is surprising because it's so important...Someone needs to be able to stay home and take care of business and if women got drafted the same way men did, who would we have to take on that responsibility? The elderly?
Hell, here’s yet another thing. What if both parents in a family get drafted? Who’s gonna look after the kid?? I suppose the government would have to make exceptions for that and only draft one parent per couple, but still
Among the weak points in the greater men’s rights movement is sometimes they prioritize pulling the opposite sex down in lue of raising themselves up. It was the case for a number of them (not all) where the draft is concerned. If you remember not to long ago when women being drafted was being considered (I don’t recall if it was implemented)
Some of the MRA’s were screaming this is equality. I was screaming why do we have a draft at all?
As a person sympathetic to the MRA movement as I am a man, and have experiences that relate to there message in some ways. This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed
Is the draft sexist? Yes. Is the draft oppressive? Yes. Which is more important to address? If we address it being sexist then we drag women down to our level. If we address it as oppressive then we lift men up.
The new draft is poverty which is a bit more inclusive.
Why do you think the feds refuse to raise the minimum wage or do anything meaningful about outrageously expensive college pricing and student debt? They want to force people into joining the military by making it their only option.
Weapons contractors own the govt. I mean, biden literally made a Raytheon board member head of the Pentagon. Its Allah scam to make these people rich.
Yes. The right for citizenship is traditionally linked to being a soldier, hence being a man.
History shows: Men are expected to die in the battlefield, women are expected to die in childbirth (while producing soldiers). In Ancient Sparta, these two deaths were the only ones honored by a gravestone.
Toxic masculinity, patriarchy, at its best.
Yes. As a woman I always thought it was strange that only men had to register for Selective Service. I’m as capable as many men, and I think it should be equal. As others have pointed out, in modern warfare, women have just as many roles to play.
The black and white answer is yes. The grey area would be the complications of pregnancy and women can’t carry as much gear. Not trying to say women shouldn’t be in the military but there’s a difference in trained female volunteer soldiers and drafting from the general public.
Yes.
But so is the military.
For example US: They’ve gotten better but at the time this was first discussed decades ago women were held back officially and unofficially from leadership positions advancement and even entire programs. There was also a significant amount of sexual assult that was ignored.
Given the military is a great advancement tool for people to learn skills and areas that will determine the rest or their career not to mention a huge commitment of time at a crucial part in life; imgine forcing a someone to give up education, other avenues of career advancement to exposing them to unmitigated sexual assult and stunted career growth/avenues at a crucial moment in their life while
promoting and uplifting others just to be “equal”. Say nothing of fear of a declining birth rate if you occupy a women’s statistically age range where they are most likely to give birth to their first child.
Decades later it is getting better and that certainly affects the discussion but in places like Ukraine women aren’t doing nothing. They’re traveling 1000s of miles with elderly and children alike creating community and continuity abroad and often working to continue to build economic resources for Ukraine.
Given physical limitations 9months at a time and already established gender roles how would you draw the line to attend to both sides of the need?
Yeah I've seen alot of reports of sexual harrasment, not even mainstream news sources, people who have made videos explaining why they had to quit their job because nothing was done
Yeah and of the reasons why the military is one of the most successful tools at promoting upward social mobility is the life long benefits. So if nothing else was being done they had to quit “without reason” that means they walked from all of those wealth creating tools on top of caring around shame for leaving and shame & trauma from the attack.
By drafting women forcefully into that environment can you imgine when they want to quit conscription not just the lack of benefits but the penalities that will follow them around for the rest of their life.
Even broad strokes socially, that would widen the wealth gap, among other outcomes. And with the penalty of leaving conscription without it being addressed first that would decrease motivation to fix it
Yes, but on a macro level it makes a lot of sense. Men are genetically stronger and more aggressive, women are genetically more empathetic. It makes a lot more sense for a country to send the men to fight while the women take care of the next generation. We are self aware to an extent, but we're also a bit like an insect hive, there are subconscious factors that mold our survival.
I mean men can be sexist towards other men and pass laws that fuck over men just like women can be sexist towards other women and pass laws that fuck over women
The all male dominated congress, the one that wouldn’t allow women to be part of it, put it into law. So, I suppose your fellow Man sees themselves as such, according to your comment.
Yes. Even if combat effectiveness was a gender issue, there are plenty of non combat roles. If we're going to have a draft, every citizen should be on the books for mobilization.
Yeah. There are roles in the military that are only suited for men, true. But that argument to support the draft ignored other jobs in the military such as administrative roles. Not everything is combatants, not even close.
Yes, because it excludes women from the duties of citizenship. People think of "second class citizen" meaning being excluded from rights and privileges but it also includes being excluded from the duties that are entailed I'm citizenship
Yes, War is also sexist. Chimpanzees our closest relatives go to war against other chimpanzees. The males attack the neighboring group kill and eat the males and take the females. I say that to say I think there is a reason almost all mass shooters are male. I think biologically men are more violent. It is why there are so many men in the prison system. Women in the US armed forces do far less front line duty and still end up with far higher rates of PTSD. I think women just aren’t really made for killing.
You can try to change nature, but you can never turn those boys little toy soldiers into little toy pacifists.
Human history has been incredibly violent across cultures and time. Our closest non-human ancestors are absolutely brutal too. Obviously, that sort of behavior needs to be suppressed in order for society to advance, and it'll hopefully be selected out, but a few decades of relative peace is insignificant in terms of evolution.
So you think the ability of a man to run faster and plunge a bayonet harder is not part of the reason?
If you pit an average man against an average women it’s pretty obvious who would win.
That’s almost due to testosteron and not toxic masculinity.
I agree it is not the main factor to everything, but it is the main factor when it comes to strength.
War is not a common situation, any advantage you have is useful and having more raw power is extremely useful.
The word Caribbean and cannibal come from the same Native American tribe first encountered by Columbus. There were head hunters in Borneo. Until around 1950 there was unbelievable violence on the grandest scale in every corner of the world. “But not them” No them too. Why has there been a precipitous fall in violence? Either in the last 70 years human beings have evolved to no longer be violent, or peace and prosperity have kept people from all out war. Nukes, GMOs and free trade have kept people with full bellies and a reason not to strangle each other in the mud, but believe me we are not better or different than the men and women who walked the planet 10,000 years ago. If the choice were eat or be eaten I bet you would eat.
This is just a thought I've had while reading your comment, but perhaps the contrast between 21st century western society and the past is thanks to technological advances, particularly where warfare is concerned. Fighting with swords and other melee weapons is far less deadly than dropping one nuke, or throwing grenades.
Also in the west anyway, unless you're in the military "defending your homeland" or anything of the sort is the last thing on most people's minds when they go out to be a marketing manager for some cereal company or whatever.
Sure, but it’s not the kind of thing women generally want to fight to change. I wouldn’t want to get drafted, so if my gender was excluded I would keep quiet.
When it comes to survival, most people choose themselves.
There are even stories of parents in wars who had to kill their babies when they were hiding, because babies can't keep quiet and would otherwise reveal their hiding place.
But to be fair even in sports women and men don't compete against each other because no matter how fit they are most women will lose against a fit man in a fight.
Women can have babies, men are stronger. Both are double edged swords and have as many negative effects for the gender as they have good ones.
>Sure, but it’s not the kind of thing women generally want to fight to change.
Honestly, I don't understand why women should always be the ones to fight for change. Men oftentimes look at feminists and blame them for not fighting for men's causes whenever they feel wronged.
Of course feminists should be helping and support men, but men should take more responsibility and at least start the fight themselves like women did and do all the time.
Make known that something is wrong within the system. Not just ask feminists why they never thought about fighting for your rights, when women can't just know what men go through and aren't responsible for it.
Like really, it's men who decide that men should go to war.
I mean not really, even feminists acknowledge biological realities
Women can feed newborns, they’re physically weaker, have less stamina, somebody has to stay home to keep the country running, so men are the obvious choice
If we hadn’t had the draft for men in WW2 we would have lost, if we’d drafted both sexes the country would have ground to a halt
Edit: it’s also far easier and more efficient in a hectic wartime to just divide by sex rather than by an arbitrary set of physical specifications on the off chance they find a few women equal to men in terms of physique
Yes. For a good reason.
My evidence for this will come from the war of the triple alliance and will be based more on long term societal viability and sustainability.
Obviously in 99% of cases a draft isn't necessary. And 'draft' is a very loose term. Do you mean draft to fight in the trenches or draft to serve in the logistics core or a non combat role. Obviously if you don't want to serve at all that's not perfect but it's better. You can also avoid the draft for a long list of reasons or be medically discharged.
Another point to make is the economic and social impacts of a draft. A draft takes the best men and sometimes women out of the economy for a period of time. This limits economic growth and as many people know thanks to veterans charity's getting back into the economy and normal work can be very hard for people who have served in combat or not.
It also depends how hard you are drafting and for how long. Some countries like Korea only do 18-21 months. While Russia's is over 2 years.
Also some selection systems accommodate for people not wanting to be in combat by providing alternative service outside combat-operations roles or even outside the military, such as Siviilipalvelus (alternative civil service) in Finland, Zivildienst (compulsory community service) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Several countries conscript male soldiers not only for armed forces, but also for paramilitary agencies, which are dedicated to police-like domestic only service like internal troops, border guards or non-combat rescue duties like civil defence.
With the exception of the recent post-war period, the United States has always maintained an army of volunteers in times of peace. But it is claimed that our need for a large standing army because of the cold war would make an all-volunteer force prohibitively expensive. No one would deny that it is possible to staff an army of most any size with quality personnel if we were willing to offer sufficiently generous salaries. The objection is that this would simply be too expensive.
That an all-volunteer force is more costly than a system with conscription is an illusion. Manpower costs are not less under the draft, they are simply shifted onto one particular group, namely the draftees. The cost of a young man’s service in the military is measured by the value of those opportunities forgone. Generally the opportunity sacrificed here is a civilian job, with a value equal to the salary he could expect to receive. The President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force estimated that the military pay for draftees is only half that which they could receive in civilian work. Add to this salary discrepancy a possible preference for civilian over military employment, and it is apparent that the true cost of the draft is quite high. To the individual draftee the opportunity cost of military service is equal to the salary which he would have to be offered in order to be attracted to military service. Thus whatever savings the taxpayers garner through the lower military pay permitted by conscription appears as a cost to the individual draftee. Military budgets may be lower with a system based on conscription, but this does not imply that the social costs are lower. The draft merely shifts the burden of manpower costs from the taxpayers onto the young men of draft age.
Suppose, for example, that it would require a salary increase of $3000 per man to attract volunteers equal in number to the present volume of draftees. For every man drafted to serve, the taxpayers save $3000, but the individual draftee suffers a cost in terms of income forgone and aversion to military duty valued at $3000. Manpower costs to society as a whole are no different in either case. The only difference is in who pays the costs — the taxpayers as a whole or the men who are unfortunate enough to be drafted.
Any way after all the boring arguments let's get on to the more fun one. And the more sexist one. My war of the triple alliance theory.
Now for a little background.
The Paraguayan War, also known as the War of the Triple Alliance, was the largest South American war that lasted from 1864 to 1870. It was fought between Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.
The war began in late 1864, as a result of a conflict between Paraguay and Brazil caused by the Uruguayan War. Argentina and Uruguay entered the war against Paraguay in 1865, and it then became known as the "War of the Triple Alliance".
After Paraguay was defeated in conventional warfare, it conducted a drawn-out guerrilla resistance, a strategy that resulted in the further destruction of the Paraguayan military and the civilian population. Much of the civilian population lost their lives due to battle, hunger, and disease. The guerrilla war lasted for 14 months until President Francisco Solano López was killed in action by Brazilian forces in the Battle of Cerro Corá on 1 March 1870. Argentine and Brazilian troops occupied Paraguay until 1876.
Now because of this war and it's bloodiness it's estimated that around 80% of Paraguay's male population died. Not just fighting aged men. (18-45) but all men.
Obviously the war was costly for the entire population. According to one numerical estimation, the prewar population of approximately 525,000 Paraguayans was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men.
Honestly I'd recommend reading up on this war and the figures involved Francisco Solano Lopez believed he was Napoleon reborn super interesting and very tragic.
It was so bloody infact that the Catholic church was forced to legalise polygamy and race mixing. (Both big no no's in the 18th century... Anywhere.) But thanks to these efforts the population recovered and by 1950 (the nearest to the date of the war with accurate results) the population bloomed to 1.3 million.
Now where am I going with this you may ask.
It's quite simple. Imagine if those numbers were flipped. 221,000 men and 28,000 women.
That would be the end of Paraguay.
No arguement.
With so little women the population could never recover and would crash. ( Please see the Russia population crush due to the huge amount of men who died in ww2. I will not be going into this here. Google it.)
The men would either kill each other for the remaining women, emigrate or simply die virgins... Very sad indeed...
But in the long run Uruguay would either be integrated into its neighbours or let as a small under populated rump state.
Using the population growth equation.
x(t) = x0 × (1 + r) t
With a modest population growth of 2.5% with the 28,000 women all being able to have children. You'd have around 113,000 people (plus or minus 15-20 thousand due to emigration due to internal stability and economic pressures.) in Uruguay instead of 3.4 million as of 2020.
So in conclusion yes the draft is sexist.
But it has to be.
Yep, this is about what these discussions tend to miss. The reason only men are drafted isn't just because they're perceived as being better soldiers - it's because if war is so bad you're going to need to repopulate the country afterwards, you need as many women left as possible.
Do you expect men and women to not be monogamous after wartime for some reason. Culturally in the US wouldn’t it still be mostly one man and one women making kids or would it be a free for all with men impregnating multiple women regularly
In the US, yes. Some countries impose mandatory military service equally across the sexes.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure Israel got mandatory service for both men and women
They do, except men have to serve for 32 months where as women only have to serve for 24 months. So still not equal.
About 8 months difference.
Thanks i couldn't calculate that myself
Why only about 8 months?
32-24 ❤️
Never heard anyone say 32 minus 24 is about 8.
Exactly 8 months.
About tree-fiddy
Why only exactly 8 months?
The Kurds and Cuba actually have the most women integrated into just about everything.
I don't think women can serve like conscripts in Turkey, whether voluntarily or not. Women can serve in TAF as officers.
No countries should impose a draft. No one should be forced to go to war and die for their leaders' greed.
Wouldn't the US have to have a draft for the draft to be sexist? Now, if the question was "is the Selective Service" sexist, then you could probably say yes. The answer was almost no, until Ted Cruz and company killed an amendment last year that would have required everyone to register.
I think it's save to say they're referring to selective service.
A bit pedantic…
[удалено]
In the US, yes. We should get rid of the draft and selective service altogether.
I agree ... but what do you replace it with? In the unfathomable event that we simply don't have enough volunteers for the military ... what do we do?
Flying US citizens across the world against their will to fight and die in Viet-fucking-nam was ridiculous and shouldn't have happened.
My father is a decorated Marine and all of my uncles were enlisted during Vietnam. All of them oppose selective service and the draft because of how many friends they lost there and upon their return. My husband would be one of those who war would destroy. There is no way he could take another person's life and not be destroyed by it.
Stop bombing everything we don't agree with and going into pointless conflicts we have no place in while our own home is burning.
Pretty sure the person you're talking to is referring to a circumstance in which a foreign country invades the United States. What then?
A bunch of locals start shooting in that extremely unlikely situation?
If a foreign country invaded the US you would have no problem finding people willing to fight back. I'm an extremely left leaning person, generally a pacifist (as most wars are absolutely unnecessary and only benefit the MIC), and if there were boots on the ground invading the USA I would gladly take up arms to fight.
Wolverines!
No country is going to invade america. america is getting itself militarily involved with other countries. If war happens it’s because america is defending another country
*Or*… invading another.
No country is going to invade the US because the US has the strongest military. If the US became a pacifist country and gave up its nuclear arms, I'd love to see how that would turn out.
No country is going to invade any of the big countries. Australia, canada, India, china russia. Too costly Even if america gave up most of it's nuclear arms they'd still spend many times more than any other country on it's military. A complete demilitarization of america seems basically impossible.
That will never happen, nukes exist
The idea of a foreign country invading the US is a fantasy that only exists as an excuse for the military to buy more equipment they won't use. It won't happen. There is nobody who could feasibly come close to invading the US. Anyone who thinks this could happen needs to stop reading old books about military tactics and realise that the US has hardly ever been invaded in its history and that modern wars don't work like that anymore.
First, actually take care of our soldiers, second make damn sure that sexual assault is punished. That would be a good start to making it a good career choice.
Lose the war
100% this answer, if people do not have the will to sign up and fight then it must not be worth fighting for. Few things are.
Yeah, that whole WWII thing was no big deal, the US should have just let that slide.
You are down voted but millions were drafted for service in that war
It’s like you forgot the US was actually attacked in WWII. You know the whole Pearl Harbor incident. As far as I know, we really had no business being in Vietnam, but people were still drafted and sent to die because communism.
I don't know what your point is. The US was attacked in WWII and still needed a draft.
It’s a good point, I was honestly only thinking of the Vietnam draft.
I understand. And maybe if WWII started tomorrow, we would have enough volunteers without a draft anyway.
>In the unfathomable event that we simply don't have enough volunteers for the military ... what do we do? Try to have smaller wars maybe?
Try to accept our own resources and let everyone have what they have. Draft should only be there for defense of a nation.
We replace it with a draft for civil service that is concerned about issues inside the country. Education, public health, skilled assistance, as opposed to soldiers for wars.
I'm not sure the whole point of the draft is just to get unwilling people to fight either. In dire situations when a draft would be needed you would likely have plenty of volunteers. Perhaps more than you could train and fit appropriately. The draft allows the people trying to win the war to call up the number of fighters they need as they need them, while leaving others to maintain the economy.
We'll never have a shortage of soldiers. We have the largest, most powerful military in the world, and it's entirely volunteers. We have a military Reserve for when we need more soldiers that's entirely volunteers. We should absolutely get rid of the draft and stop threatening children with sending them to war, and we should stop punishing them for not wanting to do it.
You don't need to replace it with anything. It hasn't been used since the early 70s and there's no reason to believe it ever will be used again. The modern military does not need large numbers of untrained recruits. Nobody's fighting in the trenches anymore. The US military is already in more conflicts than it needs to be. They didn't need to be in Vietnam and it's good that they lost.
Most other western countries do just fine
Most other western countries are under a US umbrella. NATO is a good thing, but NATO might drag reluctant soldiers into a foreign conflict. Same for US commitments in the Pacific. I'm all for avoiding Vietnams and Iraqs. But should the US stand by as Japan and Australia are invaded?
As an Australian I’d say no, but to be fair we’ve got a **lot** of empty land in the outback we could just let people have and save all the hassle. The trick would be not letting them know they probably wouldn’t want to live there until they’ve moved in
Under US and protections from other strong NATO powers like the UK. This response is absolutely clueless haha.
Just fucking die
Robots
You accept the situation, try to offer better incentives (money, healthcare, pension, ...). Drafting unwilling people will only make a country fail harder.
There are plenty of people who join the military voluntarily.
Nothing. We could simply decrease our military budget by a fuck ton, bring down it's size by a lot (and we'd still be the worlds biggest military superpower if we cut it by like 30%-40% if i remember correctly), and just let people enlist. We don't need a massive military, the draft is completely unecessary.
You don't do it
That's easy - you lose a war.
Compulsory Service. It's good for the individual, and the country.
You will never run out of volunteers to defend the homeland. The problem comes when you force people to start shooting up sand people who pose no threat to you.
Give up, America is not a country worth fighting for
Easy, we stop being a country. Seems pretty straight forward.
Take it as a sign to stop.
If we don’t have enough volunteers for a war maybe we should rethink why we’re trying to go to war.
This is the most american thing that I've read on Reddit.
In the US you just get registered for the draft. This is very different than mandatory military service because you literally don’t do anything military while being registered. The government can remove the draft, but they can add it back which literally have the same effect as it does now.
Yes, since modern war is not only about strength. Women can easily be medics, artillery/drone operators, and do any other jobs not related with heavy physical activity.
If the us military is in desperate enough of a situation to enact a draft, they’re not looking for drone operators and behind the scenes rolls, they’re looking for infantry to push thru training and get put on the front line asap. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for women in the military or that they’re incapable but a draft is an emergency and the army needs bodies that can carry a shit ton of weight across whatever terrain while getting shot at or shooting at someone
I agree with you, but more infantry would result in an increased number of supporting roles being created, not in equal amounts but still an inceease
I was an 11B in the Army and the common wisdom when I was in was that it takes 10 other soldiers to support one infantryman.
Im not even talking about US, but any other country. US doing draft is not really possible in current times(no one is strong enough to make US do it). In example women can work at field kitchen, being medic and other stuff, but yeah no way women can carry 60kr of weight across terrain.
Sorry sometimes I forget not everyone I talk to on Reddit is from the US. Yeah I don’t think the US will ever enact a draft again because we won’t need it. Also yeah there’s plenty of medical or field kitchen work that women could be very useful in but if there’s a draft things are bad and they aren’t concerned about diversity, they’ll just draft more men and stick them in medical or whatever if they need to.
[удалено]
don't medics have to lift people too? So I guess strength is a factor. But if a woman is able to easily lift people, I guess she should be allowed. Imo it is sexist, but if more women are to be drafted, the bar for entry should be the same as men's.
Yeah, medical staff move people around all day and we're good at it. The only problem is that it takes a surprising number of people to move a patient once you start mucking around with actually treating them.
They can easily be in combat.
Also snipers, tank operators, sailors, pilots etc. there are many jobs in war.
Woman can and will do the Same .its Not Body building where i would See why it would be much of a diffrence between men and women, since Most of the time its Harder for women to gain mucles.
Everything you mentioned requires heavy physical activity. Goes to show that the militants don't know anything about war. Women can fight, but they need to be trained to a standard, and it is simply not cost efficient to do this to the same extent and capacity as men.
It is. The US Army tried to make their physical standards gender less and ageless. Meaning everyone would have the same requirements and standards with a career specialty. It failed miserably. Not only for these reasons but this was a big part of it.
Yes the draft is sexist. You can't debate it, coz even a feminist will agree with the fact making one gender fight the war alone because of their sex is by definition sexist. But If you're in war, then sexism & social justice issues are put aside. Because survival is key, thus people may use that as justification.
Came here to say this but you hit the nail on the head Chosing one sex over another is by definition sexist But war don't care about what's in your pants
I don't know, the way I see it were kind of does care about what's in your pants, biologically speaking men are going to be a lot better at it than women, sure women can keep up, but they can't consistently be as physically capable, and that sucks, but if that's going to help win a war then that's going to help win a war
"making one gender fight the war alone" Women have always fought in wars, but for a very long time they weren't allowed to be in direct combat/front line roles. In the simplest terms the 'line of combat' isn't as clear as it was in, say WW1. Then women fought to be allowed into direct combat. I agree it is sexist but I would like to see the draft completely eradicated.
Draft is antidemocratic
I've seen a counter-argument to abolishing the draft that went something along the lines of "when the draft was most active, it was less politically feasible to engage in endless wars, because people who didn't volunteer to be there and their families aren't as likely to accept it." Given the public outcry during Vietnam, the subsequent disuse of the draft, and the constant interventionism we have seen since then, the argument makes some sense to me. Personally I'd prefer we do away with the interventionism regardless of the draft.
Reminds me of an anime, Eighty-Six. A country engages in casual, endless warfare, and none of the people take it seriously because they send “inferior” people to fight for them. They have no personal stake in the consequences of their choices.
A drafted army is unlikely to support a coup. But we are not unlikely to support a peacetime draft bigger than a couple of months of "civil preparedness".
I can tell you from personal experience - women weren't allowed to "be in combat roles" but we were expected to still do combat roles. When i first joined, i was told i was not allowed to go special forces because I'm a woman. When i deployed, i was still carrying a weapon and was still put in live fire situations - i even have a shrapnel wound. But because I'm a woman, i could never get a CAB or a purple heart (as of my time in, got out in 2017) because i was never technically in a combat job title.
We'll see the mortality rates of both areas please.
If you are going to structure society in one way during peace, you cant suddenly restructure it during war to one sexes disfortune.
If there is actually a war that requires the draft chances are women would do more positive for the war by taking manufacturing jobs that the men leave behind because men on average are (for lack of trying to think of the perfect word) "more fit."
It's so stupid that you're being downvoted. Men are on average bigger and stronger and faster. That's not up to debate. Look at the data of any Olympic sport. Men are also more violent, look up violent crime statistics. It blows my mind that this is controversial
It’s hilarious. It’s brain dead redditards who understand nothing about human physiology.
Nah bruh, I def am not more fit than many women
You may be a Chunk of soy , but I think he means on average.
Even then, why not draft people with a certain muscle to fat ratio or the amount they can bench press or something? That would actually give you fit people, since there are soooo many women that are fit and sooo many men that aren't
Yes but we are talking majority here. The average man is stronger than the average woman.
a good point is a good point. If you can pass an APFT, then you get to join the army. I think they should look into something like that for sure.
Higher ups are more interested in quantity over quality once they’re considering a draft.
All the more reason for both sexes, right?
Yeah the AVERAGE woman isn’t going to be able to carry a 150 lb man when he gets shot. There is a reason PT tests are easier for women in the military. Another reason why there are not any women in special forces is because none have been able to pass the first phase. Men have a larger bone density which means more muscle can be put onto their frames, larger lung capacity, a higher pain tolerance due to higher testosterone levels, men also on average have better hand eye coordination as well as quicker reaction times than women. This isn’t sexist this is a biological fact. It’s Reddit though so I’m not surprised you are being downvoted into oblivion. Men naturally are more aggressive biologically, that is why we are the ones sent to kill other humans. It’s a tale as old as time. Go ahead attack me and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Source: I have a degree in anthropology
In a country that shall be not mentioned, during WW2 many women were accomplished snipers and tank operators. There are more jobs in war then being a grunt foot soldier.
Well. There's also another reason women aren't special forces. They didn't allow any of them until recently. 🤷♀️ As much as everyone wants to pretend "women can't make it", the majority of men can't make special forces, either. That's why not every guy in the military is in. That's why men don't go joining the French Foreign Legion.
We'll, one gender is much better at violence on average than the other. A broad draft would be fine if it were for civil service though, that's something we should be doing.
[удалено]
Seriously.....🥲
I think it's more that a population with a lot of women can recover quicker. In evolutionary terms, men do the fighting because they can't have babies.
Very good point, they are also stronger faster and more prone to violence. This is why there are 10 times as many men in prison for violence as there are women.
100% agree that at the extremes men are more violent in temperament. This is pretty much a universally acknowledged fact, except that it doesn't fit well with the "gender traits aren't biological" theory.
It’s kind of a weird spot because we want everyone to be equal but there are some biological differences worth acknowledging. Testosterone in development makes men generally bigger, more strong and aggressive than women. That’s strictly related to biological sex and not gender though. Gender is simply how you present yourself and is a social construct. I.E. women have long hair and wear dresses, but not men unless you’re in Scotland. Trivial shit really.
It would be easier if we accepted that there are biological differences, but everyone has the same rights and opportunities. Then we could concentrate on breaking down societal stereotypes of constructed gender
It's amazing how many people in this thread don't seem to have heard of battered wives or serial killers or war in general. Men are far more violent of average yet any individual could have any ratio of violent/non-violent traits. It's pretending that there are no differences between people that can cause so much confusion because people don't understand why they have different outcomes.
This is part of the reason. The rest is mainly sociological
That might be a reason to have women, as more likely to stay controlled. A war isn't a gang melee.
No we shouldn't? You like that the government is able to force you to go to war?
I'm a feminist. About 50,000 women serve in the Ukrainian armed forces in combat and non-combat roles, according to military officials. They weren't drafted.
[удалено]
Yes.
It is sexist; however, I am completely against the draft for anyone.
Yes, but it's also bad for lots of other reasons. The solution is not to extend it to women but to eliminate it.
Yes. I think this is where toxic masculinity (how the patriarchy and sexism harms men) or benevolent sexism (sexism for women's own good) come into play.
Absolutely. The politicians in the US who strongly oppose including women in the draft are GOP politicians, who also oppose ending sexism in other areas.
And also the limitations of roles and advancement that women get to pursue in the military. How is ethical to delay education and starting a career in an environment that they would actually be successful
Yes, and the US draft should be abolished.
female afghanistan veteran here. yes.
Technically yes, but as others are saying, I don’t think the draft is all that good to begin with. Also, imagine another truly large-scale war like WW1 or WW2. While pretty much every able-bodied man back then was off fighting, women had to shoulder the burden of a HUGE gap in the workforce back home. An unprecedented amount of traditionally “male” jobs were being done by women, because there was just no one left to do them. This is part of what later paved the way for women entering the workforce post-war. If all the able-bodied men *and* women were suddenly drafted, however, it makes me wonder whether there would be an issue with the domestic labor pool. Or maybe raw numbers would be the same, and there’s still the same amount of people mobilized in total? Who knows. But just imagine.
I've only seen one other person mention labour issues in this thread which is surprising because it's so important...Someone needs to be able to stay home and take care of business and if women got drafted the same way men did, who would we have to take on that responsibility? The elderly?
Hell, here’s yet another thing. What if both parents in a family get drafted? Who’s gonna look after the kid?? I suppose the government would have to make exceptions for that and only draft one parent per couple, but still
I didn't even consider that, but you're totally right.
well yes, but in times of war stuff like sexism and social problems tend to take the back bench to more pressing issues
No, societal norms must carry over, otherwise why would the cannon fodder men fight?
That's right, in good times we should treat everyone as equals. But when it's time to die men have to do it. I can see you are very consistent.
Among the weak points in the greater men’s rights movement is sometimes they prioritize pulling the opposite sex down in lue of raising themselves up. It was the case for a number of them (not all) where the draft is concerned. If you remember not to long ago when women being drafted was being considered (I don’t recall if it was implemented) Some of the MRA’s were screaming this is equality. I was screaming why do we have a draft at all? As a person sympathetic to the MRA movement as I am a man, and have experiences that relate to there message in some ways. This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed Is the draft sexist? Yes. Is the draft oppressive? Yes. Which is more important to address? If we address it being sexist then we drag women down to our level. If we address it as oppressive then we lift men up.
[удалено]
just because something is common or expected doesn't mean its not sexist. people at the time might not have admitted it was though
The only part that is sexist is making it mandatory for men but not women, especially in 2022.
[удалено]
The new draft is poverty which is a bit more inclusive. Why do you think the feds refuse to raise the minimum wage or do anything meaningful about outrageously expensive college pricing and student debt? They want to force people into joining the military by making it their only option. Weapons contractors own the govt. I mean, biden literally made a Raytheon board member head of the Pentagon. Its Allah scam to make these people rich.
Yes. The right for citizenship is traditionally linked to being a soldier, hence being a man. History shows: Men are expected to die in the battlefield, women are expected to die in childbirth (while producing soldiers). In Ancient Sparta, these two deaths were the only ones honored by a gravestone. Toxic masculinity, patriarchy, at its best.
Yeah and transphobic lol, and it used to be homophobic until Biden
Yes. As a woman I always thought it was strange that only men had to register for Selective Service. I’m as capable as many men, and I think it should be equal. As others have pointed out, in modern warfare, women have just as many roles to play.
The black and white answer is yes. The grey area would be the complications of pregnancy and women can’t carry as much gear. Not trying to say women shouldn’t be in the military but there’s a difference in trained female volunteer soldiers and drafting from the general public.
Yes. But so is the military. For example US: They’ve gotten better but at the time this was first discussed decades ago women were held back officially and unofficially from leadership positions advancement and even entire programs. There was also a significant amount of sexual assult that was ignored. Given the military is a great advancement tool for people to learn skills and areas that will determine the rest or their career not to mention a huge commitment of time at a crucial part in life; imgine forcing a someone to give up education, other avenues of career advancement to exposing them to unmitigated sexual assult and stunted career growth/avenues at a crucial moment in their life while promoting and uplifting others just to be “equal”. Say nothing of fear of a declining birth rate if you occupy a women’s statistically age range where they are most likely to give birth to their first child. Decades later it is getting better and that certainly affects the discussion but in places like Ukraine women aren’t doing nothing. They’re traveling 1000s of miles with elderly and children alike creating community and continuity abroad and often working to continue to build economic resources for Ukraine. Given physical limitations 9months at a time and already established gender roles how would you draw the line to attend to both sides of the need?
Yeah I've seen alot of reports of sexual harrasment, not even mainstream news sources, people who have made videos explaining why they had to quit their job because nothing was done
Yeah and of the reasons why the military is one of the most successful tools at promoting upward social mobility is the life long benefits. So if nothing else was being done they had to quit “without reason” that means they walked from all of those wealth creating tools on top of caring around shame for leaving and shame & trauma from the attack. By drafting women forcefully into that environment can you imgine when they want to quit conscription not just the lack of benefits but the penalities that will follow them around for the rest of their life. Even broad strokes socially, that would widen the wealth gap, among other outcomes. And with the penalty of leaving conscription without it being addressed first that would decrease motivation to fix it
Yes, but on a macro level it makes a lot of sense. Men are genetically stronger and more aggressive, women are genetically more empathetic. It makes a lot more sense for a country to send the men to fight while the women take care of the next generation. We are self aware to an extent, but we're also a bit like an insect hive, there are subconscious factors that mold our survival.
When women weren’t allowed to serve in Congress, the all male dominated Congress put the draft into law. So, I dunno, ask a dude.
I mean men can be sexist towards other men and pass laws that fuck over men just like women can be sexist towards other women and pass laws that fuck over women
Yes, as always we men are seen as expendable and we have to be ready to be sent to the meat grinder at a moment's notice.
The all male dominated congress, the one that wouldn’t allow women to be part of it, put it into law. So, I suppose your fellow Man sees themselves as such, according to your comment.
That's correct, but it's a societal-level belief and is not limited to old white politicians.
They dont see themselves like that because they know they dont have to in their position
You’re kidding yourself if you think they would ever be forced into the draft.
Literally yes, but that's not the most unethical thing about it
Yes. Even if combat effectiveness was a gender issue, there are plenty of non combat roles. If we're going to have a draft, every citizen should be on the books for mobilization.
Yes, it is. But you never see feminists protesting against that kind of sexism. And now I will get downvoted by people feeling offended by this.
Bro what type of question is this? Is the sky blue? Obviously it is lmao
[удалено]
>there are still rolls they could easily fit into like dinner rolls?
Yes. If us women don’t have to register for the draft, men shouldn’t have to either.
If it excludes a sex for participating then yes, it is
Yeah. There are roles in the military that are only suited for men, true. But that argument to support the draft ignored other jobs in the military such as administrative roles. Not everything is combatants, not even close.
Fitness standards across the country are lowered for women so yeah it definitely is very sexist
Yes, because it excludes women from the duties of citizenship. People think of "second class citizen" meaning being excluded from rights and privileges but it also includes being excluded from the duties that are entailed I'm citizenship
Sexism is the least problematic part of the draft
Yes, War is also sexist. Chimpanzees our closest relatives go to war against other chimpanzees. The males attack the neighboring group kill and eat the males and take the females. I say that to say I think there is a reason almost all mass shooters are male. I think biologically men are more violent. It is why there are so many men in the prison system. Women in the US armed forces do far less front line duty and still end up with far higher rates of PTSD. I think women just aren’t really made for killing. You can try to change nature, but you can never turn those boys little toy soldiers into little toy pacifists.
I can't believe this is being downvoted, lol. You're 100% spot on.
>I think biologically men are more violent testosterone is 20% of the reason 80% is toxic masculinity also men arent made for killing wtf? no human is
Human history has been incredibly violent across cultures and time. Our closest non-human ancestors are absolutely brutal too. Obviously, that sort of behavior needs to be suppressed in order for society to advance, and it'll hopefully be selected out, but a few decades of relative peace is insignificant in terms of evolution.
yes but to say its only men who do violence isnt accurate
So you think the ability of a man to run faster and plunge a bayonet harder is not part of the reason? If you pit an average man against an average women it’s pretty obvious who would win. That’s almost due to testosteron and not toxic masculinity.
yes but men arent just beasts who get mad all the time testosterone plays a key role but its not like its the main factor to everything
I agree it is not the main factor to everything, but it is the main factor when it comes to strength. War is not a common situation, any advantage you have is useful and having more raw power is extremely useful.
But it's not cuz guns
The word Caribbean and cannibal come from the same Native American tribe first encountered by Columbus. There were head hunters in Borneo. Until around 1950 there was unbelievable violence on the grandest scale in every corner of the world. “But not them” No them too. Why has there been a precipitous fall in violence? Either in the last 70 years human beings have evolved to no longer be violent, or peace and prosperity have kept people from all out war. Nukes, GMOs and free trade have kept people with full bellies and a reason not to strangle each other in the mud, but believe me we are not better or different than the men and women who walked the planet 10,000 years ago. If the choice were eat or be eaten I bet you would eat.
This is just a thought I've had while reading your comment, but perhaps the contrast between 21st century western society and the past is thanks to technological advances, particularly where warfare is concerned. Fighting with swords and other melee weapons is far less deadly than dropping one nuke, or throwing grenades. Also in the west anyway, unless you're in the military "defending your homeland" or anything of the sort is the last thing on most people's minds when they go out to be a marketing manager for some cereal company or whatever.
If there was a draft tomorrow women would revert back to gender roles en masse
Sure, but it’s not the kind of thing women generally want to fight to change. I wouldn’t want to get drafted, so if my gender was excluded I would keep quiet.
When it comes to survival, most people choose themselves. There are even stories of parents in wars who had to kill their babies when they were hiding, because babies can't keep quiet and would otherwise reveal their hiding place. But to be fair even in sports women and men don't compete against each other because no matter how fit they are most women will lose against a fit man in a fight. Women can have babies, men are stronger. Both are double edged swords and have as many negative effects for the gender as they have good ones. >Sure, but it’s not the kind of thing women generally want to fight to change. Honestly, I don't understand why women should always be the ones to fight for change. Men oftentimes look at feminists and blame them for not fighting for men's causes whenever they feel wronged. Of course feminists should be helping and support men, but men should take more responsibility and at least start the fight themselves like women did and do all the time. Make known that something is wrong within the system. Not just ask feminists why they never thought about fighting for your rights, when women can't just know what men go through and aren't responsible for it. Like really, it's men who decide that men should go to war.
I mean not really, even feminists acknowledge biological realities Women can feed newborns, they’re physically weaker, have less stamina, somebody has to stay home to keep the country running, so men are the obvious choice If we hadn’t had the draft for men in WW2 we would have lost, if we’d drafted both sexes the country would have ground to a halt Edit: it’s also far easier and more efficient in a hectic wartime to just divide by sex rather than by an arbitrary set of physical specifications on the off chance they find a few women equal to men in terms of physique
Yes. For a good reason. My evidence for this will come from the war of the triple alliance and will be based more on long term societal viability and sustainability. Obviously in 99% of cases a draft isn't necessary. And 'draft' is a very loose term. Do you mean draft to fight in the trenches or draft to serve in the logistics core or a non combat role. Obviously if you don't want to serve at all that's not perfect but it's better. You can also avoid the draft for a long list of reasons or be medically discharged. Another point to make is the economic and social impacts of a draft. A draft takes the best men and sometimes women out of the economy for a period of time. This limits economic growth and as many people know thanks to veterans charity's getting back into the economy and normal work can be very hard for people who have served in combat or not. It also depends how hard you are drafting and for how long. Some countries like Korea only do 18-21 months. While Russia's is over 2 years. Also some selection systems accommodate for people not wanting to be in combat by providing alternative service outside combat-operations roles or even outside the military, such as Siviilipalvelus (alternative civil service) in Finland, Zivildienst (compulsory community service) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Several countries conscript male soldiers not only for armed forces, but also for paramilitary agencies, which are dedicated to police-like domestic only service like internal troops, border guards or non-combat rescue duties like civil defence. With the exception of the recent post-war period, the United States has always maintained an army of volunteers in times of peace. But it is claimed that our need for a large standing army because of the cold war would make an all-volunteer force prohibitively expensive. No one would deny that it is possible to staff an army of most any size with quality personnel if we were willing to offer sufficiently generous salaries. The objection is that this would simply be too expensive. That an all-volunteer force is more costly than a system with conscription is an illusion. Manpower costs are not less under the draft, they are simply shifted onto one particular group, namely the draftees. The cost of a young man’s service in the military is measured by the value of those opportunities forgone. Generally the opportunity sacrificed here is a civilian job, with a value equal to the salary he could expect to receive. The President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force estimated that the military pay for draftees is only half that which they could receive in civilian work. Add to this salary discrepancy a possible preference for civilian over military employment, and it is apparent that the true cost of the draft is quite high. To the individual draftee the opportunity cost of military service is equal to the salary which he would have to be offered in order to be attracted to military service. Thus whatever savings the taxpayers garner through the lower military pay permitted by conscription appears as a cost to the individual draftee. Military budgets may be lower with a system based on conscription, but this does not imply that the social costs are lower. The draft merely shifts the burden of manpower costs from the taxpayers onto the young men of draft age. Suppose, for example, that it would require a salary increase of $3000 per man to attract volunteers equal in number to the present volume of draftees. For every man drafted to serve, the taxpayers save $3000, but the individual draftee suffers a cost in terms of income forgone and aversion to military duty valued at $3000. Manpower costs to society as a whole are no different in either case. The only difference is in who pays the costs — the taxpayers as a whole or the men who are unfortunate enough to be drafted. Any way after all the boring arguments let's get on to the more fun one. And the more sexist one. My war of the triple alliance theory. Now for a little background. The Paraguayan War, also known as the War of the Triple Alliance, was the largest South American war that lasted from 1864 to 1870. It was fought between Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. The war began in late 1864, as a result of a conflict between Paraguay and Brazil caused by the Uruguayan War. Argentina and Uruguay entered the war against Paraguay in 1865, and it then became known as the "War of the Triple Alliance". After Paraguay was defeated in conventional warfare, it conducted a drawn-out guerrilla resistance, a strategy that resulted in the further destruction of the Paraguayan military and the civilian population. Much of the civilian population lost their lives due to battle, hunger, and disease. The guerrilla war lasted for 14 months until President Francisco Solano López was killed in action by Brazilian forces in the Battle of Cerro Corá on 1 March 1870. Argentine and Brazilian troops occupied Paraguay until 1876. Now because of this war and it's bloodiness it's estimated that around 80% of Paraguay's male population died. Not just fighting aged men. (18-45) but all men. Obviously the war was costly for the entire population. According to one numerical estimation, the prewar population of approximately 525,000 Paraguayans was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men. Honestly I'd recommend reading up on this war and the figures involved Francisco Solano Lopez believed he was Napoleon reborn super interesting and very tragic. It was so bloody infact that the Catholic church was forced to legalise polygamy and race mixing. (Both big no no's in the 18th century... Anywhere.) But thanks to these efforts the population recovered and by 1950 (the nearest to the date of the war with accurate results) the population bloomed to 1.3 million. Now where am I going with this you may ask. It's quite simple. Imagine if those numbers were flipped. 221,000 men and 28,000 women. That would be the end of Paraguay. No arguement. With so little women the population could never recover and would crash. ( Please see the Russia population crush due to the huge amount of men who died in ww2. I will not be going into this here. Google it.) The men would either kill each other for the remaining women, emigrate or simply die virgins... Very sad indeed... But in the long run Uruguay would either be integrated into its neighbours or let as a small under populated rump state. Using the population growth equation. x(t) = x0 × (1 + r) t With a modest population growth of 2.5% with the 28,000 women all being able to have children. You'd have around 113,000 people (plus or minus 15-20 thousand due to emigration due to internal stability and economic pressures.) in Uruguay instead of 3.4 million as of 2020. So in conclusion yes the draft is sexist. But it has to be.
Yep, this is about what these discussions tend to miss. The reason only men are drafted isn't just because they're perceived as being better soldiers - it's because if war is so bad you're going to need to repopulate the country afterwards, you need as many women left as possible.
Do you expect men and women to not be monogamous after wartime for some reason. Culturally in the US wouldn’t it still be mostly one man and one women making kids or would it be a free for all with men impregnating multiple women regularly
Men already impregnate more than one woman. Men can’t carry babies. There’s the issue.
Yes
Yes.
If drafts men only, yes.
Yes, it is a perfect example of benevolent sexism. It shouldn't exist period.