Women in the United States Draft

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Juno said:

And you're suggesting that all women should be stuck with the decision of the majority of women, and that all men should be stuck with the decision of the majority of men.  You're still making a distinction between men and women without really justifying why you're making that distinction, rather than any other (political persuasion seems like it would be more relevant).

Women are free to enlist. Define stuck.

 

I've justified it, you just don't think that it qualifies as enough justification to you.

I see men and women differently, and I know for a fact that no matter what I say, it won't change your opinion.

So I'm not going to say why.

[tuco]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I was talking about the women's rights movement and some of the things it has accomplished, and the subject of women not being required to register for the draft came up.

Should women be required to register for the draft?

If so, should they get leniency in assigned roles, such as not being assigned to combat roles if they opt out of it?

Should .. well, I can image referendum about this, which would determine this "should". It's certainly "doable": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

[Juno]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Women are free to enlist. Define stuck.

That decision means that only men are drafted, so my brother has a higher likelihood of being drafted because your sister is exempted.  That has an effect on me that I would disagree with.  

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And what's your opinion on this subject?

Which one? 

I've pointed out some conflicts in your framing. 

"Should women be required to register for the draft?"

is completely separate from

"If so, should they get leniency in assigned roles, such as not being assigned to combat roles if they opt out of it?"

The first one does not require there to be a draft, just a draft registry.

 

Should women be required to register for the draft? Sure, why not.

If so, should they get leniency in assigned roles, such as not being assigned to combat roles if they opt out of it? That's nothing new — men can opt out of combat, too. Conscientious objector status is something that has been in place for along time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_in_the_United_States#Alternative_service

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_in_the_United_States#Alternative_service

 

You have to prove it goes against your belief.

Being a pacifist, political beliefs, etc, don't count.

Basically religion only.

And very rarely as well.

Can't just opt out.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You have to prove it goes against your belief.

Being a pacifist, political beliefs, etc, don't count.

Basically religion only.

And very rarely as well.

Can't just opt out.

Very rarely?

"Of the few applications the Army received (between 18 and 39 per year) between 49% and 78% were accepted per year"

...and that's people who have already voluntarily enlisted in the army!

And if you amend the law to include women, and also re-institute the draft, you can amend the law to broaden CO status.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Very rarely?

"Of the few applications the Army received (between 18 and 39 per year) between 49% and 78% were accepted per year"

...and that's people who have already voluntarily enlisted in the army!

And if you amend the law to include women, and also re-institute the draft, you can amend the law to broaden CO status.

Getting the objection when you've voluntarily signed up is far easier than getting it when you've been drafted.

Additionally, you're only talking about 9 to 30 accepted cases of combat objection out of a military of 1.4 million people.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Getting the objection when you've voluntarily signed up is far easier than getting it when you've been drafted.

Evidence?

For Vietnam: "Over the duration of the conflict, the Selective Service recognized 171,000 conscientious objectors"

http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofconscience/background/

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Additionally, you're only talking about 9 to 30 accepted cases of combat objection out of a military of 1.4 million people.

If you have an existing objection to serving in the military, it stands to reason you would be unlikely to volunteer for service in the first place. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Evidence?

For Vietnam: "Over the duration of the conflict, the Selective Service recognized 171,000 conscientious objectors"

 

You failed to mention that only 171,000 were accepted out of around 500,000 applications for the Vietnam war.

So your link actually supports my point that it's considerably harder because only around 34% were accepted, as compared to your average of 63.5%.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/co website/pages/HistoryNew.htm

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You failed to mention that only 171,000 were accepted out of around 500,000 applications for the Vietnam war.

Failed? That information wasn't in my link, I'm not responsible for the content in it, and this is evidence for your claim that you should have presented in the first place. I have no obligation to do your research for you, in order to support your claim. There are 7 billion other people who failed to provide that information, too.

Also take note that the interpretation of CO status expanded in 1965 and again in 1970, i.e. halfway and then 3/4 of the way through the war. So some of the people denied CO status in e.g. 1963 could have been granted that status in 1973.

[MigL]

The fact that women don't start wars ( Helen of Troy excluded ) is no reason for them to not be drafted ( if it ever came back ).

Most young men ( Gavrilo Princep excluded ) don't start wars either.
Draft only 50-60 yr old men.

Oh, wait, that's me !

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Most young men ( Gavrilo Princep excluded ) don't start wars either.
Draft only 50-60 yr old men.

Lead and I'll follow (from way way behind....). My suspicion is that if that was implemented there could be fewer wars. 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not about them having a vagina and breasts.

It has much more to do with their psychology

TBH, I don’t see this as helping your case which I find simplistic and naive

[Raider5678]

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

TBH, I don’t see this as helping your case which I find simplistic and naive

Perhaps you're right.

However, I guess I'll continue being me, because I haven't changed my opinion.

I don't think women should be forced to sign up for the draft.

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't think women should be forced to sign up for the draft.

Nor do I, but my thinking on this point applies equally to males and has nothing to do with chromosomes. 

[Raider5678]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Nor do I, but my thinking on this point applies equally to males and has nothing to do with chromosomes. 

And my line of thinking applies to males as well.

However, there is a push in legislation to include women in the draft.

So regardless of your thinking of males in this topic, it was about your opinion on women being added.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

So regardless of your thinking of males in this topic, it was about your opinion on women being added.

Which I expressed very clearly in my very first reply yesterday. No need to be prickly about it

On 4/11/2018 at 8:13 AM, iNow said:

I think the draft itself should be eliminated. If we must have it, however, it should apply equally to all regardless of gender. Once through training, people will naturally be sorted into the roles for which they're best fit. What plumbing they use to reproduce is extraneous and irrelevant.

 

[CharonY]

On 4/11/2018 at 7:49 AM, Raider5678 said:

Because I'm a sexist who hates women I assume.

That would be the definition of misogynist rather than sexist. You are confusing the  meaning of various terms. Skimming through your replies you seem to be waffling quite a bit on various bits and ends and to me it seems that you try to compress rather complex issues revolving around equality and societal perception of gender roles in a very narrow view of your perspective. As you have not provided a coherent view on that matter (and frankly, I assume that you are still looking for  a way to  piece it together, hence your line of questions) it is difficult to respond in a comprehensive manner.

Which is why (I suspect) the discussion quickly fragments into smaller quibbles. Let me ask you a basic question in that regard. You stated that you think of the different genders in a very different way and presumably treat them as such. Ignoring the reasons behind this, do you think that your views should be incorporated into legislation? If so, how? And what do you think would be the consequences? 

Edited April 12, 2018 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

do you think that your views should be incorporated into legislation?

No. Besides the draft example, which is what we're talking about, there is no other circumstance where I could think that my views would even matter in legislation. 

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

what do you think would be the consequences?

Women not being in the draft.

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That would be the definition of misogynist rather than sexist.

 

Fair enough. For the record to anyone else, the definitions:

sex·ist

ˈseksist/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

mi·sog·y·nist

məˈsäjənəst/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

    

    

    

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

You stated that you think of the different genders in a very different way and presumably treat them as such.

My turn to ask questions.

You're correct, I treat different genders differently.

Care to take a guess in what ways?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Care to take a guess in what ways?

Dumb ones?

[Raider5678]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Dumb ones?

If you think men and women are the same you're living in an illusion.

They're equal, by all means.

However, there is no possible way you're telling me you believe there are no differences between men and women.

Besides plumbing.

 

Actual, scientific studies, can show you that men and women think differently.

They take different approaches to things.

They use portions of their brain differently.

They have different hormones in their bodies.

Does it make men or women better than one another? No. But it does make them different.

 

https://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

https://www.thecut.com/2015/08/male-female-brains-are-just-a-little-different.html

https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/heres-the-biggest-study-yet-on-sex-based-brain-differences.html

 

 

I deal with kids a lot, young kids. Depending on if they're a boy or a girl, also depends on how I try to cheer them up if they're sad. You can call it dumb, I don't care. I care more about making them happy then how sexist they might think it is in 10 years, nor how you think about how dumb it is.

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Perhaps you’re mistaking a mean for a universal?

Also, don’t move the goalposts.

You spoke of the ways YOU treat the genders differently, not of the mean differences btw the genders themselves (in context of the post I quoted and to which I was rather obviously replying)

Edited April 13, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you’re mistaking a median for a universal?

No. I understand it's a median.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, don’t move the goalposts.

You spoke of the ways YOU treat the genders differently, not of the mean differences btw the genders themselves (in context of the post I quoted and to which I was rather obviously replying)

I'm not moving the goalposts. 

 

I spoke of the ways I treat genders differently. Yes. 

You automatically considered it dumb, without evaluating what I did differently. You have automatically come to the conclusion I am wrong, without even knowing what I do.

So I provided evidence pointing to differences between the genders, how they act, how they learn, how they handle things, and how they typically are.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I treat them different because they are different. And I have to back that up with you. But if providing evidence for why I do something is moving the goalposts perhaps I shouldn't use evidence?

 

More evidence. Just because you'll probably come to a conclusion on my motives on treating them differently before I tell you what they are.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gail-gross/how-boys-and-girls-learn-differently_b_5339567.html

Hell, even this encourages you to understand they are different and treat them as such:http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov04/vol62/num03/With-Boys-and-Girls-in-Mind.aspx

https://www.rd.com/advice/parenting/how-boys-and-girls-learn-differently/

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1571&context=etdarchive

 

 

 

 

Anyways, this is off topic.

I have no further interest in persuing this.

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You automatically considered it dumb

Correction: You asked us to guess in what ways you treat the genders differently. My guess was dumb ones, not my verdict. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

Correction: You asked us to guess in what ways you treat the genders differently. My guess was dumb ones, not my verdict. 

Uh huh.

You're telling me, you were not assuming in your head that the ways I treated them differently were dumb before I told them?

That you had no assumptions, no conclusions, and then when you put the question mark behind it you said it in 100% serious, non-sarcasm, guessing?

If so you really need to learn how to guess. Because that came off heavily as predetermined sarcasm. Especially since it didn't provide any examples and was a guess about the qualities of said actions and not actual actions.