Feminists - A question.

[Rothbardian]

It's not that feminism always puts women ahead of other groups, it's just that the definition of it normally used it kind of fallacious; Egalitarianism is a much better word. By virtue of the fact that the prefix fem- is in there the very term excludes other groups. In addition, the history of feminism is rife with exclusions of other minorities and their own biases, largely which come from the fact that feminism has by and large been a movement of white upper/middle class women targeting the socioeconomic status of white upper/middle class men. It's only more recently that it has come to terms with this and become much more inclusionary, although there's still infighting between different factions because most ideologies still work the same way.

The political reality is that feminism is a far more defined movement and political platform than simply saying "equality between sexes", and that someone who says they are a feminist is pretty much assumed to hold to the ideals of the movement, which goes beyond black and white parity, sometimes into some pretty gray areas(abortion, views on sexuality, etc). That's the extra connotation of calling yourself a feminist, not that women should be above other groups.

Egalitarianism. That dirty, dirty word. Are not human beings unique individuals born with unique traits? Or are we merely worker ants in the hive, all identitical to one another? Stamping out diversity (Not the faux diversity of multi-culturalism which necessarily destroys all cultures and coalesces into one coerced culture), variety, and creativity. As Murray Rothbard said:

"What, in fact, is "equality"? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are "equal" if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be "equal" in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are "equal," etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be "equal" in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men — the egalitarian ideal — can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction — a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity."

I highly recommend Kurt Vonnegut's "Henry Bergeron", a gripping reality tale of the horrors and manifestations of an egalitarian world.

"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."

No, women are not equal to men in many ways, and vice versa. This is a fact of life. A lucid undeniable fact. Pushing against laws of nature, is abhorrent, and self-defeating. Should women be allowed for example, to partake in the NFL? Should the State come in and force teams to hire women, for the sake of equality, and egalitarianism. Imagine a world where coercive, violent, authorities deem 'equality' to be the goal. This is exactly the picture given in Kurt Vonnegut's tale.

What about intelligence? We all ready see this with Affirmative Action where those who achieve higher scores and are more qualified are passed over solely on the basis of racism -- the color of ones skin -- in the name of equality. This is State enforced, at a point of a gun. Failure to comply will result in fines and or imprisonment (read: kidnapping). If your goal is egalitarianism one can scarcely imagine a world where forced equality at the point of a gun achieves this paradoxical reality. Where the under-achievers are promoted on the sole basis of gender and race. Is that liberal progressivism idolized in egalitarianism? It sure is. It has been said by C.S. Lewis:

“We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

The fact is -- Man is inequal. We are creatures of inequality. This inequality is what gave rise to civilization and to economic prosperity through Division of Labor. This is what gives rise to different cultures. To variety -- to the spice of life.

Furthermore Rothbard adds:

Since egalitarians begin with the a priori axiom that all people, and hence all groups of peoples, are uniform and equal, it then follows for them that any and all group differences in status, prestige, or authority in society must be the result of unjust "oppression" and irrational "discrimination."

This is borne out in the 1972 Democratic Convention, as follows:

"A few groups are singled out as having been "oppressed" by virtue of delegates to previous conventions falling below their quotal proportion of the population as a whole. In particular, women, youth, blacks, Chicanos (or the so-called Third World) were designated as having been oppressed; as a result, the Democratic Party, under the guidance of egalitarian-quota thinking, overrode the choices of the voters in order to compel their due quotal representation of these particular groups."

This display of hypocricy coming from a group of people who extol Democracy, yet, in their wallowing don't even realize they have adapted every Totalitarian creed on their manifest destiny towards Egalitarianism. It is not surprising though, given a complete lack of logical philosophical creed. It is such a shame that the word liberal has been so tarnished, and so defecated upon.

So, those feminists and those Leftists who extol Egalitarianism are nothing short of delusional people swashing through the tide of human nature and biology which tells them -- Humans are inequal.

To supplant this I bring forth:

In his brilliant refutation of the women's liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are:

• The distinctive female experience of maternity" including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an "intimate and integral connection with the child … associated with physiological effects and strong emotions";

• The hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes";

• The varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls"; and

• The psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities," in particular the "fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles" as biologically determined in men and women respectively.[8]

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence that:

it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance…. For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls — and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well — and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls … will find difficult to overcome.

For a more thorough read and refutation of Egalitarianism -- http://mises.org/daily/3071

I propose to the Feminists that liberty should be your goal. A world in which voluntary action is cherished. A world in which the most qualified rise to the cream of the crop, not on the basis of quota-systems, but on their merits as individuals. Look at Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand. The Trinity of the 1940s libertarianism. A rare abberation indeed. Boy, would I have loved to meet Rose & Isabel (Not so much Ayn, as I do not like her one bit). These women rose to the intellectual pinnacle on their merits, not on a quota system enforced at the point of a gun. Instead of seeking power of the gun, seek to improve on ones individual gifts imbued upon them at life. We all have our unique gifts and abilities to bring into the world. This inequality is beautiful and it should be cherished and nurtured, not hidden and thrown away.

[joft]

dear god, it's like some philosophy major schopenhauer wannabe combining the best of all the classical views on male superiority with franz gall-level pseudo-science

it's kindof entertaining actually, reminds me of dr. andy zaltzman from john oliver's "terrifying times"

[Rothbardian]

dear god, it's like some philosophy major schopenhauer wannabe combining the best of all the classical views on male superiority with franz gall-level pseudo-science

it's kindof entertaining actually, reminds me of dr. andy zaltzman from john oliver's "terrifying times"

In case you missed it, Males and Females are both superior and inferior -- inequality. It is this inequality, that is the natural state of human beings. Males are superior when it comes to physical tasks, would you agree? Females are more compassionate. Likewise, brain scans and other physiological traits show that men are more logical, and women tend to be more emotional. This is just a fact of life, and trying to swim against biology and human nature is bound to be a fail. A hard fail. Secondly, you missed the broader picture that egalitarianism is nothing more than totalitarianism wrapped in a pretty bow called 'equality', but what people don't realize is that 'equality' is nothing more than collectivization of the hive-mind.

That we are to become all equal. All drones. With no differing characteristics.

Perhaps you should re-read this, and read Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature. I argue for liberty, Natural Law, and voluntary action. What gives you the right to forcibly come into my private business, or property and tell me who I can, or cannot hire in what quantities, and in what specifications? Why even have private enterprise if you are just going to State-run it anyways? Bunch of complete totalitarian BS.

The only progress that man-kind will achieve will be through voluntary action. You agree in blowback, and an anti-war position, correct? The premise of that is that force cannot change peoples perceptions and ideas. Only through peaceful, voluntary means do we evolve as a society. Some refer to this as the Schelling point. We didn't just mystically get to where we are today, nor did the Colonists in 1776 as flawed as they were. It took time to build from Salamanca, to Voltaire, to Locke, and onwards to Paine, and Cobden, and Bastiat. This constant progress and agitation to liberty and freedom should be the agitation of Feminism, but Feminism is the complete opposite. A totally abhorrent philosophy. I cringe everytime I hear the word progressive and liberal and the lexicon used today. You guys would be reactionaries, and conservatives in the vast history of man-kind for the history of man-kind is riddled with Tyranny. You are conservatives. Eschew tyranny, and embrace liberty, for liberty is a new and progressive idea, indeed, liberal means liberty - total liberty & Natural Law. If Lysander Spooner, H.D. Thoreau, Bastiat, Paine, Locke, and the rest knew that liberalism today meant toryism they would be appalled.

[Ivve]

I understand reasons that random women aren't ever going to be thrown into the infantry, but why aren't women required to register for drafting into the same services that a male Conscientious Objector gets shoveled off into?

I would think the reasons that people are denied the ability to register as conscientious objectors is probably because there are a) limited numbers of those positions available in the first place because they just don't need that many bodies and b) you have to put a cap on the number of people who can opt to do this or everyone would opt out of serving. Nobody wants to be drafted. Also, there is not a need for a constant stream of these guys, because a) they're not dying in the line of duty and b) even if it worked in "shifts," similar to how men are only deployed for a particular block of time, there are still going to be significantly less conscientious objectors working in the US than deployed soldiers. After all, you only need to replace the men that were drafted out of that short list of jobs, and the rate of turnover is simply not as great. Does all of that make sense?

Breaking it down with numbers, there are over 300 million people in the US. If even 40% of that population is male, that's still ~120 million people. I don't know what portion of that population would be fit for service, but if it's even 30% of that number, that's 36 million people. Thirty-six million fucking people seems like more than enough to provide enough people to fight a war on foreign soil and man the hospitals and whatever other jobs conscientious objectors might be called upon to do.

Bear in mind, this is without even factoring in any of the female population. If you add eligible females to this pool of people, there are going to be less available conscientious objector slots for men. There might not even be any; they might just do away with it completely. Why not? Your services would no longer be required, and the alternative is going to a position that can only be filled by a man. That raises the question: Why would you want to make it even harder for men who don't want to go to war to get the very positions that would prevent them from going? That seems counterproductive to your own aim. I don't have any personal objection to the idea, but I thought men wanted more options than military service, not less.


For the people who are still not grasping why it's retarded to draft women into the military:

A majority of the roles that draftees are being put into are combat roles. As has been repeated over and over throughout the thread, drafting women to fill non-combat positions that are currently occupied, and then sending those people to war is just not effective for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, people who are not infantry are just not much more effective than fresh draftees. Like someone else said earlier, passing a weapon qualification test every 6 months does not make you a soldier. What is the perceived advantage here? What justifies this action?

Second, those people are already trained to do whatever job it is that they're doing. You must train someone else to take over job A and then retrain the people who previously did job A to now do job B, which is needlessly expensive. Also, now both the people in job A and people in job B are completely inexperienced. On top of that, when/if they are injured (to the point of needing to be discharged) or killed, all that non-combat knowledge and skill is completely lost.

Expanding on that a little more, let's say you're a financial counselor on base before the draft begins. You're in the military for 7 years, and you earn the rank of sergeant or even staff sergeant. How great is that for you? What a paycheck you must be getting! Now the draft happens, and you are shunted sideways into a combat position. As a sergeant. You have no more skill, knowledge, or experience than the bootest boot to ever graduate boot camp, and you are expected as a sgt/ssgt to be a leader of men. You are now in charge of leading who knows how many motherfuckers into a combat situation, and you have pretty much no qualification to do this job. I feel fucking sorry for your men and their families.

Last, and this ties in with the previous point, is that displacing volunteer enlistees is a) extremely likely to bring down morale and b) foster resentment toward those female draftees who would be perceived as pushing them out, taking their jobs, etc.

It doesn't make any sense fiscally, it doesn't improve efficacy on any level, and it doesn't even lend itself to being a positive environment for women to enter. There are absolutely no advantages to this situation at all, except a handful of civilians feel really really pleased that everything is totally even-steven now.

It's not that feminism always puts women ahead of other groups, it's just that the definition of it normally used it kind of fallacious; Egalitarianism is a much better word. By virtue of the fact that the prefix fem- is in there the very term excludes other groups. In addition, the history of feminism is rife with exclusions of other minorities and their own biases, largely which come from the fact that feminism has by and large been a movement of white upper/middle class women targeting the socioeconomic status of white upper/middle class men. It's only more recently that it has come to terms with this and become much more inclusionary, although there's still infighting between different factions because most ideologies still work the same way.

The political reality is that feminism is a far more defined movement and political platform than simply saying "equality between sexes", and that someone who says they are a feminist is pretty much assumed to hold to the ideals of the movement, which goes beyond black and white parity, sometimes into some pretty gray areas(abortion, views on sexuality, etc). That's the extra connotation of calling yourself a feminist, not that women should be above other groups.

I don't disagree, but that's not the impression I get from the majority of comments in this thread. I don't think anyone is aware of any of these issues surrounding the word; there's just a perception that all "feminists" are these hardcore man-hating, me-first, women-are-superior-to-all types. Some of that is purely, simply hate. You cannot propose subjugating men (or anyone), or declare a position of superiority without believing that some other person is less person than you. I call that hate. The fact that some people put it in a dress and call it feminism is just disgusting, and unfortunately seems to be what most people who have posted speaking out against "feminism" think it's actually about.

There is no one particular belief that binds feminists together outside of the desire for equality; that may be the only thing that all women who consider themselves feminists can agree about. (That also kind of weakens the position and the movement as a whole, but that's another topic.) Two women that identify as feminists can have opinions at the opposite ends of the spectrum about sexuality, abortion, whathaveyou, and it is all kind of covered under that one umbrella term. There really isn't any kind of blanket statement that can be made about all feminists outside of the most basic definition, is what I'm getting at here. Nothing else should be assumed or implied. Whether or not it is, is a different matter entirely. That is all I'm trying to say.

[Priran]

For the people who are still not grasping why it's retarded to draft women into the military:

A majority of the roles that draftees are being put into are combat roles. As has been repeated over and over throughout the thread, drafting women to fill non-combat positions that are currently occupied, and then sending those people to war is just not effective for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, people who are not infantry are just not much more effective than fresh draftees. Like someone else said earlier, passing a weapon qualification test every 6 months does not make you a soldier. What is the perceived advantage here? What justifies this action?

Second, those people are already trained to do whatever job it is that they're doing. You must train someone else to take over job A and then retrain the people who previously did job A to now do job B, which is needlessly expensive. Also, now both the people in job A and people in job B are completely inexperienced. On top of that, when/if they are injured (to the point of needing to be discharged) or killed, all that non-combat knowledge and skill is completely lost.

Expanding on that a little more, let's say you're a financial counselor on base before the draft begins. You're in the military for 7 years, and you earn the rank of sergeant or even staff sergeant. How great is that for you? What a paycheck you must be getting! Now the draft happens, and you are shunted sideways into a combat position. As a sergeant. You have no more skill, knowledge, or experience than the bootest boot to ever graduate boot camp, and you are expected as a sgt/ssgt to be a leader of men. You are now in charge of leading who knows how many motherfuckers into a combat situation, and you have pretty much no qualification to do this job. I feel fucking sorry for your men and their families.

Last, and this ties in with the previous point, is that displacing volunteer enlistees is a) extremely likely to bring down morale and b) foster resentment toward those female draftees who would be perceived as pushing them out, taking their jobs, etc.

It doesn't make any sense fiscally, it doesn't improve efficacy on any level, and it doesn't even lend itself to being a positive environment for women to enter. There are absolutely no advantages to this situation at all, except a handful of civilians feel really really pleased that everything is totally even-steven now.

You seem to be arguing against the draft, rather than against drafting women, while the reality remains that men are required to register for selective service while women are not.

[Ivve]

You seem to be arguing against the draft, rather than against drafting women, while the reality remains that men are required to register for selective service while women are not.

Are you joking? Men who are drafted are not filling positions that are already filled. Women would, by necessity. I thoroughly explained that. I have no idea how you could have drawn any other conclusion unless you're just trolling.

[Priran]

Male draftees in the U.S. can get shoehorned into non-combat roles, so yes, they would be filling roles that are already filled.

Also, drafting women seems to be working fine for China, Israel, and North Korea. Maybe I should alert them that Ivve of bluegartr forum thinks they're stupid.

[Rothbardian]

Are you joking? Men who are drafted are not filling positions that are already filled. Women would, by necessity. I thoroughly explained that. I have no idea how you could have drawn any other conclusion unless you're just trolling.

You have yet to answer the question that begs; why not send women into combat-roles? Moreover, while I am against a National Military, and in favor of voluntary militias for the common defense and protection of liberty, if you are a Feminist the only logical position based on the theory is to hold that women should be able to apply for combat roles. I am sure there are women out there that can perform better in combat than some men. Why limit? So, then, exclusionary measures that keep women out of combat is hypocritical of Feminists. Further end of the spectrum are those who call for quota-based systems, which is even worse than the previous exclusionary measures.

Indeed, it seems, the correct measure is to base application and hiring on the basis of merit of both physical and mental acuity and skill.

I do find it kind of laughable you call the other poster a troll, when to me it seems you are the troll, because you fail to embrace the above approach or even discuss it, yet rail against superiority, as if superiority in and of itself between the sexes is unnatural. Frankly, men are superior in many areas than women, and women are superior in many areas than men. Men & Women are not equal creatures, physiologically or psychologically. To call this fact of nature hate, is odd to say the very least. Merely observing and noting this natural fact is not a proposition for exclusionary measures, since as individuals and unique creatures it is not that all men, are superior in one area, or that all women are superior in one area, but that general traits of each sex make it so that a majority are. The point being that there will always be industries which are more man centric, and there will always be industries that are more woman centric, and that artificially demanding a revolt against nature is both inefficient, abhorrent, and macabre. This is the natural state of human beings. The only hate I see here is hate against nature.

[Ivve]

Male draftees in the U.S. can get shoehorned into non-combat roles, so yes, they would be filling roles that are already filled.

Also, drafting women seems to be working fine for China, Israel, and North Korea. Maybe I should alert them that Ivve of bluegartr forum thinks they're stupid.

Can be != must be. I've already acknowledged that not all draftees will go to combat positions, but a majority probably will. Minimizing what I described is key. Women's only option is to fill positions that are already filled by someone else, with the few exceptions where new jobs would be created to handle the needs of a larger military.

Yes, please go ahead and alert China, Israel, and North Korea that I think they're stupid. I'm sure Priran of BG forums is important enough that you could tell them how unimportant my opinion is and they'd listen to you.

Seriously though, I don't think much of that is comparable at all. Their armed services have different policies from our own, and their societies surely have different perceptions and opinions. For example, in two of the three you named, military service is mandatory. That speaks volumes about how differently our cultures view and value military service.

[Ivve]

You have yet to answer the question that begs; why not send women into combat-roles?

Read back a few pages. I did not argue against this, and even advocated it with certain policy changes, such as all-female combat units to circumvent the potential problems that arise from the sort of protective reactions toward women than society tends to instill in men.

My position is that I do believe women are capable of performing well in at least some combat positions, though I acknowledge that an overwhelming number of women who seem fit to the task are probably not currently present within the military. I also acknowledge that women will always struggle with the disadvantages our physiology can present in terms of our ability to perform incredibly strenuous work that requires a substantial amount of strength (esp. upper body strength, which is definitely where women tend to fall short of men) over long periods of time.

[Rothbardian]

Can be != must be. I've already acknowledged that not all draftees will go to combat positions, but a majority probably will. Minimizing what I described is key. Women's only option is to fill positions that are already filled by someone else, with the few exceptions where new jobs would be created to handle the needs of a larger military.

Yes, please go ahead and alert China, Israel, and North Korea that I think they're stupid. I'm sure Priran of BG forums is important enough that you could tell them how unimportant my opinion is and they'd listen to you.

Seriously though, I don't think much of that is comparable at all. Their armed services have different policies from our own, and their societies surely have different perceptions and opinions. For example, in two of the three you named, military service is mandatory. That speaks volumes about how differently our cultures view and value military service.

Here you said:

My argument is simply that if anyone is going to say that women should be drafted and held to the same physical standards as men, that women should be allowed to perform all the same jobs as men if they so choose.

Which I agree with. However, then you went on to say it was the system itself that created the environment and burden on women that is not designed to include them. This I vehemently disagree with. It is not the system, but the nature of women. Women are not built for physical stress, generally. The system however, is exclusionary, and has many artificial political quota systems which should be abolished. A simple motto is that the merits of the individual should be the sole basis of application. Get rid of quotas. Get rid of favoritism. Get rid of artificial hiring practices. It is a "Public" sector so each gender should be set to the same standards before the law, a law, that should be as practical to liberty as possible. In private enterprises and sectors the right of the property owner is absolute, therefore they have absolute domain & law over hiring policy, obviously subject to consumer demand and outcry, and societal influence, which should strictly stay voluntary, non-violent, and non-aggressive.

[Priran]

Yes, please go ahead and alert China, Israel, and North Korea that I think they're stupid. I'm sure Priran of BG forums is important enough that you could tell them how unimportant my opinion is and they'd listen to you.

Look, I'm sorry that your opinion is stupid and your arguments are demonstrably invalid, but you don't have to take it out on me by (I assume) purposely missing my point for the sake of a comeback.

[Ivve]

Look, I'm sorry that your opinion is stupid and your arguments are demonstrably invalid, but you don't have to take it out on me by (I assume) purposely missing my point for the sake of a comeback.

Please demonstrate then, because so far nobody has disagreed in any meaningful sort of way. You saying that displacement of some people within the military during a draft is a reality does not render my argument invalid by any stretch of the imagination. We're talking about the scale of the effect of that at this point.

I really don't see how I've missed the point at all. You're talking about countries who have trained all of their women in a period of mandatory service, so anyone who is drafted during wartime does have prior training and experience. I'm not sure how that is analogous to what we do in the US.

[Priran]

According to the Supreme Court, the draft does not need to be equal for a variety of reasons. However, numerous countries (not limited to the ones I named) draft women, and Israel even goes so far as to put them into combat roles, meaning this argument is demonstrably bullshit.

[Ivve]

According to the Supreme Court, the draft does not need to be equal for a variety of reasons. However, numerous countries (not limited to the ones I named) draft women, and Israel even goes so far as to put them into combat roles, meaning this argument is demonstrably bullshit.

I'm not really sure why you're choosing to ignore that our society is different from others, but that is a huge factor in why our military and the general populace hold the opinions that they do. It's simply not reasonable to say that because it is done other places, it could be successfully enacted here. We have just not reached a point in our own development as a society, and our military is not currently structured to operate in the way that some do in other places. I am simply discussing the reality of a draft within the current confines of military policy and opinion, and general public perception. If we want to ignore those parameters, the discussion becomes entirely different.

I think you're also mistakenly assuming that I don't think women should ever be allowed to hold combat positions, but such is the consequence of not reading the whole thread. I don't think that and have not argued that. I do think that drafting women without opening combat roles to them and changing some military policy is likely to ruffle feathers of all kinds, and that is definitely an important consideration.

Let me be crystal clear: In order for a draft that includes women to be a positive and effective change for the military, many things would have to be changed and restructured. It would also be a total shitstorm as far as convincing the American people that this is a good idea. We treat Birthers in this country as if their insane view is legitimate. I just don't know what else can be said there. I shudder to think about how a draft that includes women would be spun. (THEY WANT TO SEND OUR WOMEN TO WAR AND RAPE THEIR CORPSES! TONIGHT AT 10: RAPE PANELS IN WASHINGTON!) Public opinion of our servicemen is at a pretty low point already. Things like that matter in our society.

[Priran]

"uuuhhhhh it's like a different society" is a completely meaningless statement as far as the question of "could women serve in combat roles in the armed forces". They're still human beings and for the most part, they use practically identical equipment.

If you're just trying to point out why women don't serve in our military's combat roles, then culture becomes relevant.

[Ivve]

Policy restricts shit. Policy is built on opinion. Opinions here differ from opinions in other places, and thus they have different policies. Unless we change our opinions, our policies will not follow suit. I don't know what part of this is difficult to grasp.

If you're just trying to point out why women don't serve in our military's combat roles, then culture becomes relevant.

This is exactly what I am discussing. Our culture is the reason why this is currently a fucking retarded idea.

I think the answer you're looking for is that I do think women are perfectly capable of serving in the military and doing pretty much any job given to them. There is no particular reason that they should not. I just don't think that drafting women into the current system is feasible, at all. When that system is changed, it will be a different story.

[Priran]

Women could serve in combat roles. The difference is that our army can afford the luxury of being patronizing and chauvinistic and our women see no need to question inequality when it works in their favor, which goes to this thread's original point, being that feminism is a joke.

You're arguing that there is a valid reason for not drafting women, but there isn't.

[Ivve]

Women could serve in combat roles. The difference is that our army can afford the luxury of being patronizing and chauvinistic and our women see no need to question inequality when it works in their favor, which goes to this thread's original point, being that feminism is a joke.

You're arguing that there is a valid reason for not drafting women, but there isn't.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u45/regret.jpg

It's not about that at all. You keep ignoring what I'm saying about how the current way the military operates is the full and sole reason that drafting women is a bad idea. There is no further reason.

Our military believes that women are inferior to men in terms of their ability to serve in combat roles. (I don't even agree with that in all cases, though I am sure there are some situations where men are better suited to certain tasks than women are.) What I am saying is that as long as that opinion is held, women will not be directly recruited for combat positions. As such, the military is always going to make poor use of many women that might be drafted, in the ways I've stated above and probably more that I have overlooked. This is an example of how introducing women into the current system in place delivers an inefficient, inferior result. I don't believe there is justification for lowering the performance of the military during a time of war. I do believe that changes in policy and attitude could remedy this situation, and then drafting women would be a smart decision.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying that I agree with you and I have all along: there is no valid reason women should not be able to serve. The reasons that it is not a smart decision for the US military is because they don't have any interest in utilizing women in a way that makes sense.

[Maguspk]

I'm not reading the entire thread to see if this has been mentioned already, but there's a pretty simple reason women do not fight in dangerous activities in a majority of the culture around the world, hence why they are not included in the 'draft'. It isn't because they're weaker, less intelligent or less fit to fight somehow. The main reason is because we need them to maintain the population.

You need women to hold babies. This is the reason polygamy was not so uncommon in developing societies especially those in which lots of males fought or participated in dangerous activity with the risk of death. One male can maintain many more than one woman, his job is easy, he unloads his nut and gets the fuck out. He may not even have a financial obligation to the impregnated woman. In addition, it's been proven that hard training can reduce fertility in women. We don't want to force women to be physically doing things that could potential render them useless in their reproductive role. Finally, while not an issue today but certainly an issue in societies without carnation milk mix and shit, women had to care for the babies, so activities which were conducive with being in proximity to the children in a safe environment were naturally roles they filled.

Men are largely useless when it comes to reproduction. Men can be reckless, stupid and fight in wars because hey, we don't need an equal number of men to maintain the population, we only need the right number of women. So as long as we keep our women safe, the men can come back home and repopulate the shit. This is why we tend to 'protect' our women and hence why we do not encourage them to fight.

However, in today's society I see no reason for women not to be included in the draft, but those who are like vehemently opposed to it being just men sound like haters. Chill the fuck out.