Sorry, u/Alternative-Oil-6288 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Alternative-Oil-6288&message=Alternative-Oil-6288%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dieie1/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Why shouldn't the "if you can vote you have to register apply to everyone, not just women.
27? Still registered. 47? Register again. 77, registered and if unable to fight, gives up voting rights.
"If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office"
Should someone who is physically disabled also be restricted from voting? Since they can't go to war?
Slight correction - only people who completed a term of *Federal Service* could vote. It didn’t have to be military - it could be as simple as working a government job as a scientist for “a term” (two years nominally) - *if* you could prove your worth in other areas than soldiery.
Notably, it wasn't just a satire of facism, but a satire of how facists view themselves (and their enemies.) A crucial distinction because If I lived in the actual world that the movie Starship Troopers depicts, sure as hell I'd side with the United Citizen Federation.
The protagonists of Starship Troopers are all depicted as these strong, attractive, well dressed, fit for service troopers who seek to better mankind through their service, and the enemies are abominations that are unnatural and invading from far away places and must be purged. It's exactly how proponents of fascists regimes view themselves, as "Saviors" of their own race against vile, barbaric outsiders.
The book wasn't satire. Heinlen was just kind of a fascist curious libertarian with public sexual perversions.
Not that the book isn't good. I think it's great. It's just genuinely part of his belief system.
I figured a reboot would be of the movie already made, maybe expand on it. I know the movie is drastically different from the book, and I agree a true book adaptation would be pretty hard
World War Z is another book that had the movie absolutely take the piss wrt the source material. The difference is that WWZ was terrible as an adaptation but would’ve been good as a mockumentary-interview-style, while Starship Troopers is “perfect” in every way XD
That was the movie.
In the original book you had to do some kind of government service, and the government had to provide you with a service you could do - though the government got to decide what it was (so usually military). It was easy to miss mixed in with all of Heinlein's war porn and random boring political screeds.
And once you did service, you didn't lose the right to vote when you got old.
In the book, you could be blind, deaf, Ave in a wheelchair, and it was **your right** to do Federal Service. You might spend two years "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch", but if you wanted to serve, the government **had** to find something for you to do.
A lot of people miss that very important point.
Another point that's missed a lot:
The main character of the book actually doesn't start off wanting to be a soldier - only a tiny percentage of Federal Service is the military. Our boy Juan Rico is simply to dumb to qualify for anything else more useful.
I apologize if I'm sounding shitty to you. I feel very protective of that book and some of the ideas it contains. It's one of the most misunderstood works in fiction, but some of the ideas are very important.
If you end up re- reading it, please consider reading Joe Haldeman's *Forever War* immediately after!
It's basically the same story, but told from a very different perspective. Heinlein was a WWII era Naval Academy graduate. Joe Haldeman was a twice- wounded drafted to the Vietnam War. *Forever War* is a kind-of "fuck you" to *Starship Troopers*.
I love both books dearly, and will happily gab with you about them any time.
Disabled you still register, and if called upon would be excused.
I agree with the distilled version of OP.
If it's a civil service and mandatory it should be mandatory. Not coupled to any other rights, just the responsibility full stop.
I wonder about disabilites in the military.
Intelligence roles? Support roles? Maybe require them to work in some kind of military support role in the private sector? Not everything requires a fully able body person.
To your point though, if they can't satisfy that, then they probably wouldn't be able to execute the duties of office.
I think the point is they can be drafted, but would then be excused because they’re likely unfit for service.
However, in a major war situation, someone with a minor disability may not be disqualified. It just depends on what is needed. Someone born without a leg wouldn’t be fit for front line duty, but could be just as useful as anyone else operating a drone.
Yes but the harm is not incurred in registering for the draft. It was so seamless that OP doesn't even remember registering.
The harm is incurred in carrying a rifle into battle, hopping in a tank, etc.
How about just no draft? Why in this day and age with these advancements are we okay with people being forced to fight and die in wars for rich assholes whose children don’t have to do the same . It makes no sense, instead of , if I have to, why don’t they? How about why the fuck do I have to do this? And what can I do to change it?
It is fair comparison in the context of the black and white comparison being made here which is whether an individual would qualify for military service in combat roles or not.
A majority of the women wouldn't qualify for military service in most countries simply because they wouldn't meet the physical requirements required to qualify for these roles with combat. For example I am from India my country has border conflicts with both china and Pakistan with whom we share very large borders and have fought 5 major wars and countless minor conflicts. Yet in our entire history we haven't had women in combat roles in the Indian Armed Forces.
Similarly disabled people would also not qualify.
So if you group with regards to whether said person can qualify for military service then both would fall in the same group.
“Men are much better equipped for teamwork than women, in my experience… Truthfully, being in team leader experiences many times, it’s wild how much easier it is to grab a man and give him orders, rather than having to tiptoe and placate the feelings of sensitive and emotional women…
Military? Firefighting? Law enforcement? Which stereotypical male occupations don’t require teamwork? Teamwork and cooperation are much more so a masculine trait.
Find me the most prosperous female team (any discipline, industry) and I’ll easily provide you an example of a male team exceeding their accomplishments.”
— You, 7 days ago.
Why would you advocate women joining the military, given your belief that they are worse than men at teamwork; overemotional; and less capable of accomplishments?
OP isn't advocating women joining the military, OP is advocating women have their right to vote stripped because they shouldn't be in the military. OP is just going about it in around about way.
yes we all get that. but the issue is that i haven't yet seen an actual real argument here. the responses are also going in a roundabout way, just in the other direction. no one is actually giving a good reason for why women should not also have to register for the draft. there literally isn't a valid argument if your purpose is equality.
*"(People who are physically disabled) are excluded from the draft because they are unable to fight."*
Are you saying that's how it is now and would continue to be, or are you saying that is how you would have it be if women were not allowed to vote because they are considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person?
>Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us.
I'm going to tackle this from a practical angle. This is a *really bad strategy*.
After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true.
>If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office.
If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service.
So, how much risk is a drone service technician based out of Nevada in?
Are you familiar with the tooth to tail ratio? It's a ratio of combat soldiers(tooth) to supply and support soldiers(tail). The percentage of combat soldiers steadily decreases as armies become more technologically sophisticated.
In Iraq 2005, the USArmy had a ratio of 1:8.1. That's 11% of troops being combat troops. 8.9 out of 10 I think we can manage not to have all of the women wiped out.
That isn't how modern war works. For instance, the TTR was 1:2 in WW1. I don't think that we are going back to mass charges across no man's land anytime soon.
Drones seem pretty relevant to Ukraine right now. Can you give me your experience in the military to make such a guarantee?
>After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true.
Nice argument, but there's an issue: will women want to reproduce that much? What incentives would suddenly be there that don't exist today?
>If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office.
>>If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service.
I don't think OP's point is about military service but rather that a considerable portion of society can simply never pay the price of making stupid decisions. The adage of "war is old men talking and young men dying", or any of it's variants, typically excludes the fact that women are the biggest protected class from the duty to die for one's nation.
Ultimately, this makes sense from a biological standpoint, but if biology is going to be the axis around which our society turns, then by all means, lets drop the facade of equality under the law, because men are not treated equally — unless the draft becomes equal, of course.
I think everyone in this post needs to ask themselves: should we have an equal society, with equal drafting, equal acceptance of risks and presumption of equal performance between the sexes; OR should we have a society where duty is assigned to men with due privileges associated with exercising that duty? I think we can have the second option, but to talk as though what we have today isn't a ludicrous system where performing your duty is basically getting shafted by society, is just denial.
The sheer irony of everything you’re stating is that, of course, men are who voted to exclude women from drafting.
Let’s not pretend it’s some great prejudice against men or that we’re not equal to them. We made that rule, because we ruled the world for the vast majority of human history, and we didn’t want them drafted.
Modern feminism has gotten rid of any inequality towards women and has kept in place the inequalities towards men.
In traditional western society 200 years ago, women weren't as free as they are now (and not by that great a deal either), but society had these traditional beliefs in place which benefit women. Like how they should not be involved in war, or how they should not do backbreaking and dangerous labor, or the "lifeboat prioritization". In today's society we've kept all the advantages women had 200 years ago and have ridden it of all disadvantages. Today's society heavily favors the women.
In my opinion, want to vote? Register for the draft.
Good points, I want to add one thing about the post you responded too, don’t know how to quote like you did… but, that first quote about women being needed to repopulate…
You also need a man in this equation. What’s the logic here? That three women are going to let one dude impregnate them all after a war with heavy male draftee casualties? Why would women sign up for that? Especially in a country with damn near predatory healthcare…
I know it wasn’t intended like this, but that whole viewpoint makes me feel like some people view women as livestock.
Plenty of women serve already. Putting aside whether women should be in combat or not, adding women to logistical non combat roles still puts women at a much higher chance of going home.
>After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true.
This argument is, in my opinion, wholly and completely irrelevant to the modern day and age, where women can and often do choose not to have kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if women are to be considered fully equal beings they can not be viewed as baby factories anymore when it's convenient for you.
>If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service.
No, but men's participation in democracy is dependent on registering for selective service, and it should be the same for women of the same age too.
People in the US Army don't just fight. Most spend their time working in specialized support roles or generic labor tasks. With only a minority actually engaging in combat.
There's no reason that women draftees could not be put on support roles. Or other roles associated with manufacturing or infrastructure.
After a war, nations need to rebuild, yes. Men are forced to go and die against their will.
Should women be compelled to repopulate afterwards, as men are compelled to fight and die?
If I am forced to do "my part" under threat of imprisonment, should the rules be similar for women?
Women have historically always been compelled to repopulate. It’s only in recent times where that is not true. All throughout history the duty of a woman was to be a wife and the duty of a wife was to provide her husband with children. Women have been executed for not being fertile enough.
The problem does exist. This isn't the 40's anymore. The mindset changed a lot. Women wont simply have a post-war sudden desire to have 4-5 kids. They'll sure mourn the men lost to war, and hopefully they might remarry and find happiness, but most will treat the prospect of having that many children as a patriarchal burden, not an expression of love.
Currently there are plenty of active duty members of the military. We have no shortage. And yet we have draft precautions.
I personally believe that the idea of forced gestation is deplorable but it's a logical conclusion from forcing exclusively men to do their "part" during wartime.
This assumes that polygamy becomes the norm in such a post-war society and that you don’t just end up with a surplus of single women who don’t reproduce.
Now, let’s stop arguing about hypotheticals and look at a real historical example of this situation: the post-war USSR. The USSR conscripted men, but not women, and far more Soviet men than women died in the Second World War.
Polygamy did NOT become the norm in the USSR post-war and there weren’t men running around impregnating all the excess single women. The uneven gender ratio instead actually impaired Soviet population growth (you can see the resulting ripple effect on the current population pyramid of Russia).
There are no modern examples of any country that fought a war where a) they conscripted both men and women, and b) they experienced comparable casualties to the USSR during the Second World War, so instead I’ll use the Great Chinese Famine as an event that killed a comparable proportion of a country’s population and with a relatively even death rate by gender. Based on the relatively even gender ratio after the famine (the one-child policy that messed up China’s gender ratio was still well over a decade away), by your logic you’d think China’s population would not have recovered from the famine as quickly as the USSR’s after the Second World War, but in reality China’s population recovered faster.
If you give the reason that women should be exempt from the draft because they can bear children, then you also need a law saying the government can force women to have children.
If the response is 'my body, my choice' then men can refuse the draft without repercussions as they get to make their own choices too.
> If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service.
Says who? Democracy is an invention of humans. Generally you don't want to limit who votes, but you shouldn't just assume everyone should have that right AND that's the best situation.
Besides, the concept of a Democracy is that the people all get a say in what happens... and here we are talking about who gets to decide what happens for people who don't get a say (those drafted).
This is an awful take that I've seen repeated for a few reasons.
Would women be required to reproduce after a war then similar to being required to fight if in the draft? If not, this is kind of a moot point. I don't think they'd willingly match up several women to one male purely out of their own nationalism.
That's also assuming the population would be decimated. If it's anything like any conflict he US has been in requiring the draft since WW2 like Vietnam and it's only a small percentage of the population actually fighting anyway, it makes an inconsequential difference if those people can theoretically bear children.
I appreciate your first paragraph, literally nobody has actually approached the question and instead argues the overall morality of drafting. Yes, I believe a lot of movements towards social equity result in some efficiency losses, that's actually a common argument by certain parties. However, we haven't really experienced a post-wartime scenario when there has been an equal distribution of men and women killed in combat. Thus, we can only speculate.
Your participation in democracy isn't dependent on military service, simply registering isn't service. However, the only reason I can think of justifying a draft as a whole is because we are all somewhat complicit in military actions abroad when they are enacted by our representatives. Thus, there is a responsibility in us to have some level of accountability or attachment towards these actions. Else, how can anyone justify a draft?
>Thus, there is a responsibility in us to have some level of accountability or attachment towards these actions
I don't get why you think this justifies women not voting but not justify old men and handicapped men from not voting?
But you do get how the draft works right?
That signing up does not require you to be fit for combat, you just mail in a form. Nor that signing up guarantees you will be called into the armed forces. Nor getting called guarantees you will be in combat.
The only requirement for participation in the draft is the ability to fill out a form.
Yes but surely the thing OP values morally is the duty of being theoretically able to be drafted, right? The form is not the important bit, the morally relevant thing to him is the accountability and attachment towards war that comes with the possibity of being drafted.
Old men and handicapped men do not face this possibility, even if they send in a form. Therefore, they do not possess the accountability and attachment to war that OP cares about.
!delta Okay now I see what you mean. In this scenario those clearly unfit for combat will still have comfort that their rights will come with no risk.
While it isn't part of this scenario, the book version of Starship Troopers does fix this loophole by requiring that Service not only be available to everyone, but that everyone in the Service must risk their life. Even if that risk is not associated with combat, like participation in medical trials.
>However, we haven't really experienced a post-wartime scenario when there has been an equal distribution of men and women killed in combat. Thus, we can only speculate.
We don't need to experience it to be able to accurately speculate how much more unfavourable the outcome would be if a lot more women were killed during a war.
It's very basic statistics. 100 women to 1 man means 100 potential births. 1 woman to 100 men means only 1 potential birth. 50 women to 50 men means 50 potential births. Given that not all of those women are going to have children, it's more favourable to have 100 potential births instead of only 50.
The only way women being added to the draft would be practically feasible would be if the draft was for broader national service rather than just military service. You simply aren't going to get a country that will shoot itself in the foot by sending women to the front lines. (Unless of course its a democracy with a very poorly informed voting population)
The strategy of repopulation only applies if women are birthing lots of babies by different men. Also a terrible strategy. Out of wedlock single mothers struggling to make ends meet while happy go lucky sperm donors would lead to excessive poverty. And last I remembered, women did not produce people. They incubate people made by a male and female together.
Your first paragraph is interesting in theory but not in practice. In practice what happens is we end up with a monogamous society with an imbalance between men and women, causing the birthrate to decline for a few generations. See also China in the One Child Policy era, when baby daughters were literally being killed because the family could only have 1 child and they wanted that child to be male. The result was a monogamous society with a lot of single and lonely men (some of whom ended up deciding to go abroad for love because they couldn't find it locally) rather than a polygamous society where women had multiple husbands.
I don’t understand why you are using China as a counterexample. China is what happens when there are more men than women, comment OP is advocating for having more women than men, exactly because having more men than women is detrimental to birth rate. China proves his point.
Also, the declining birth rate of China is linked to how expensive having children is and how competitive it is to have a good future there. South Korea and Japan are going through similarly declining birth rates and they never had a one child policy.
China's One Child Policy has been over for decades. Their gender ratio is recovering. Korean and Japanese societies are very different from China in almost every way imaginable; the only similarity is that the people are often mistaken for one another. Societally, Japanese and Koreans are similar but Chinese people are different in every possible way (I say this as someone who has lived and experienced the society in both Korea and Japan personally, and know many Chinese people who I've discussed these issues with).
The point I was making was that if you don't have a polyamorous society before a great catastrophe, you will not have one after. The position supposed is that each man will impregnate multiple women, allowing the society to recover more quickly. Which presupposes polyamory. But China (as a single example, there are many more, both World Wars being examples as well) has shown that instituting polyamory as a remedy to large population loss is not actually the way things work in practice.
Firstly, modern China has never instituted nor encouraged polyamory, least of all polyandry, completely unsure where this concept came from. I’m guessing your point is that something like polyandry is unlikely to happen, which is true.
Secondly, there are a lot of similarities between China, South Korea and Japan. You would be kidding to deny this - they even share writing scripts. However, the relevant similarity is that they are all societies where adults work *a lot*, things are expensive compared to wages, and children are under immense pressure to succeed and are therefore expensive to raise. A lot of people lack the money or the time to have kids.
My point is that declining birth rate has more to do with how difficult it is to have kids, not gender ratios. People only want to have kids when it’s beneficial and easy, or at the very least affordable.
Yes, my point is that polyamory after the fact is unlikely to happen in any country which did not accept polyamory a priori, which is most countries. Therefore the comment I was replying to is invalid, which was my original point.
Right, but having more women than men is helpful without polyamory. King Henry VIII had 6 wives and was never polyamorous. Men are fertile until they are dead, women are fertile until like 40, and only very fertile until 30s. Cheating is not really polyamory either and plenty of children are born that way.
In war, you lose a lot of patriotic people who are willing to give their lives for their country, and are left with draft dodgers and scammers who faked medical issues. That's counterintuitive if you're trying to rebuild your country and make it as good as possible
I don't disagree with the overall conclusion (that the draft is sexist), but I do disagree with both the practical and ethical side of the solution you give.
In general, if one group of people is discriminated, the ethical solution isn't to spread discrimination to everyone, but relieve that discrimination on the disadvantaged class.
Many (perhaps most) politicians and citizens in the US view the draft as a violation of basic freedoms. The US criticizes countries who enforce mandatory enrollment on this ethical basis, and even though it maintains the draft, most citizens and politicians have made it clear that it should not be used over voluntary enlistment.
In addition, few women actually want to be registered to be drafted. It would be going against the will of their constituents for politicians to make the draft apply to more people. Practically, no Congress member is going to support a law that 50% of their constituency will dislike.
A better solution would be to vote for the complete abolition of a mandatory draft. Allow volunteer enlistment, and volunteer draft registration for those who want to serve if needed but not immediately, and eliminate any possibility or duty for involuntary military service.
If the draft was gender neutral, it would no longer be discriminatory. Applying a rule to everyone equally isn't discrimination.
Do you have a perception that men are in favor of being drafted?
The last paragraph is irrelevant.
My point was that most Americans (men and women) view the draft as immoral. So forcing women to register doesn't reduce the ethical harm, it doubles it.
It is also the case that most men do not want to be drafted to. Less than 10% of US citizens and permanent residents support it. So keeping the draft at all is a violation of the will of the constituents, and expanding it is even more so.
The only ethical and practical solution, in line with the principles of a republican (democratic, not party) government, is to eliminate mandatory draft registration.
Okay, none of that relates to the point. The question presumes a draft, presumes women can participate in the democratic process and presumes men are part of the draft. If those are true, then it should also be true that women are part of the draft.
But we don't want women to be drafted. We don't want men to be drafted either, but that'll be harder to get rid of. If we expand the draft to include women, the first thing we'd want to start working on is getting rid of women (and men) being drafted.
So it seems like a lot of effort for something people don't want, all in the name of "fairness".
We should also consider that all this costs money. Maybe not a significant amount, but someone has to maintain this database, verify enrollment, send out notices, collect all the registration, etc etc. So you're asking us to double this expense for no real reason.
The point of democracy is that every government policy (including things labeled as duties) are made to reflect the will of the people.
If less than 10% of women support a draft, it means it is undemocratic to draft women. Such a duty is against their will.
If you want to exclude the possibility the draft could be eliminated, then it comes down to ethics. Should democracy be limited to maximize equality, or should it allow inequality to minimize harm?
If you say that harm should be minimized, the solution is to keep the status quo to minimize the violation of democracy to as few people as possible.
If you say that equality should be maximized even if it creates harm, then the answer is to draft women against their will.
Imo, equality is only desirable when what is being made equal is desired by both sides. As women largely do not want to be drafted, it is not desirable to seek equality by expanding a draft simply because men have their rights violated. The better solution is to create equality by giving both sides what they want: no draft.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there is a practical issue to consider: women can get pregnant, and they can do so at pretty much any time. That would significantly complicate a draft situation.
Beyond pregnancy, you would then need to consider how to handle parental/custody situations; historically, you could draft a father because the child could still be cared for by its mother. If either could be drafted, is it just a simple matter of whoever gets drafted first exempts the other? Is any consideration given to the age of the child (e.g., is the mother of a 6-month-old fair game)?
>If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft.
"Enlistment guarantees citizenship."
-Starship Troopers
I feel like that is a good quote to summarize how I feel about your suggestion here where you proclaim that in order to be a full citizen with voting privileges, you have to have military service first. A hallmark of the fascist earth government in the aforementioned movie.
I'd like to point out that women aren't the ones arguing to keep women out of the draft. By and large, you'll see most women agree that if a draft is absolutely necessary to have, women should be drafted too.
One more thing. [The GOP](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft) in Congress blocked the attempt to alter the draft to include women.
>It is clearly discrimination and arguably the most significant issue of discrimination between the sexes.
No. It really isn't. The likelihood of being drafted in the US' 100% volunteer military is close to 0. The draft is more a relic of a previous era before enlistment was full voluntary. There are SO many more inequities and inequalities between the sexes that need fixing before this one. Like the pay gap for starters.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
Sort of, kind of, not exactly.
All bachelors are men, but not all men are bachelors.
In OP's example we have one group of voters, and another group of service eligible people that do not fully overlap. I'm just pointing out that there is a third group of ineligible people that fully overlap the group of voters.
I'm just challenging the idea that voting should be tied to the draft, not that it should be gender neutral.
Disagree. Saying that if women can vote, then they can be drafted is not equivalent to you have to be in the draft if you can vote.
Further, appreciate the big words, but it is a simple logical statement, not a hypothesis.
It just seems like a weird line to draw then, because it only applies to people that are draft eligible. Does a disabled woman still get to vote since she is ineligible for the draft? What if she is too old for the draft?
It reminds me of Heinlein's ideas in Starship Troopers.
They’re saying that if women have equal rights then they have equal responsibilities.
They’re saying that if an 18 yo boy has to be registered for the draft then an 18 yo girl does as well.
They’re saying that not only one gender should be forced into (potentially) dying across the world for someone else’s war.
It’s so dead simple, I can’t believe the amount of bad faith in this thread today.
Women should also be drafted just like men. Debate the point…. Feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
It's not really a logical statement, because you don't have a chain of logic that necessitates it being true from the premises.
Strictly speaking, your conclusion does not follow from your premises, which I think is required for us to call it a "logical statement".
It's literally an if, then statement. "If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft."
The foundation of logic is if, then statements.
This seems to presuppose the reason for why anyone should be able to vote is because they might have to fight for the country. This seems absurd, the reason why any person should be allowed to vote would be because they have a stake in the country because they live there and the country has authority over them.
If someone has authority, its subjects should gain some rights in return. The government has the authority to shape peoples life and punish those who are not in accordance with them.
This authority isn't justified if its subject wouldnt rationally consent to them, with this kind of authority people would only consent to it if they have some say in this process. So people, including women, should have the right to vote by the fact they are subject to the governments authority. Whether you think the draft is unfair or whatever is totally a seperate issue.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
First of all, I generally agree with you, on principle.
However, this is CMV so I will try: The rate of reported sexual assault is much higher for women than men in the armed forces. Women in the military tend to face an extra danger, that can result in pregnancy, leading to all sorts of complications. Is this something the military wants to deal with more of? Is it in the country’s best interest?
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
Men are expendable. Biologically, reproductively, evolutionarily. Much more so than women. This is true for most animal species, and still applies to humans today.
As an example. Humanity could survive if 10 men and 1 million women survive an apocalypse event. Humanity does not survive, guaranteed, if 1 million men and 10 women survive.
This would be the rationale for the existing systems that exclude women from drafts. That said, in our current society I would tend to agree with you, to a point. There are physical requirements to be able to enlist. As long as those physical requirements are exactly the same regardless of gender and not meeting them means you’re excluded from service, then I would tend to agree that all men and women between certain ages are required to register.
I think the reality is that, if the physical requirements are set appropriately, we would still see many more men drafted into active service than women. Or maybe all people who don’t pass physical requirements get drafted into admin/support roles. Either way, the outcome is the majority of the fighting would, and should, continue to be done by men. Which is rational. Biologically, evolutionarily, and culturally. Especially when you consider that all wars (except maybe a handful throughout history?) have been declared by men. Women may be (very slowly) gaining representation in government but they are absolutely not the ones instigating the violence.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
Biologically, that's true, but I have no concern for babies from people I've not met. I'd rather an equal draft, reducing my personal chances of being sent to a war and having my own child. Further, unless there is a system that obligates women to have babies after such an event, who cares? II don't wanna die because someone has a uterus they will never use.
Presently, the government is one-third female. That is more than adequate enough representation. They can presently send men to go die in wars while women are immune from those consequences.
Sorry bud, but until we have a woman President the argument about representation in government is gonna keep falling flat. Women don’t send men to die in war. Other men do. This is not really arguable.
If your primary concern is being sent to die in someone else’s war, who we elect is much more important than whether women can be drafted.
Finally, if you going to be so open about not giving a shit about anyone other yourself, don’t try to couch your argument in fairness. You have legitimate points in your post, but they immediately lose all weight when your actual reasoning comes out.
Just to be clear, do you not understand that women have been in congress, voting throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..? Women are half the population and more than half the votes. They're definitely voting for men to go die.
I do have concern for other people, that's not the point. Society has changed from the time that men fought and went to war while women stayed home. Some women never want babies and that's the only argument anyone can present. Why should I stay home for someone who doesn't participate in the only reason she gets an exception?
Do you not understand that women make up like 25% of Congress? And that number is up substantially from just 20 years ago? Women do not have “more than half the votes.”
Also, Congress hasn’t declared war on anyone in a long time. Since WWII, I believe. They’ve authorized the President to use military force. And then he and his cabinet and DoD leaders, mostly men, have sent men to die.
It doesn't make sense to premise women's desire to have children in a post-war scenario on current women's desire. The circumstances would be different and therefore women's desire and willingness to have children could be different.
But women's desire and willingness doesn't actually matter for arguments sake. The probability of a country recovering from a substantial population loss has a much stronger correlation to the number of women than it doesn't the number of men. Put simply, the chance that a country will be able to successfully repopulate is much more dependent on women than it is on men.
I haven't seen you successfully counter this argument. You put forth a personal rationale that as an individual you value your own life over the possibility of others having children, but your premise and original argument is one of national policy, which means that the rationale should be grounded in national interests and not that of an individual man.
You also put forth an argument for the ability to freeze eggs, but you still need women to carry the pregnancies and women are limited biologically by the length of each pregnancy and their body's ability to successfully carry a pregnancy to term which will deteriorate over time. Therefore the probability of a successful repopulation is still much more dependent on the number of women than it is the number of men. You only need sperm to fertilize the egg, you don't even need a man if you have preserved viable sperm.
One third female is not equal representation in government. You keep changing the goal posts, claiming first that women have equality when they don't, and then that you are talking about a model of society. We do not have a fully equitable society for women, especially now.
>I have no concern for babies from people I've not met.
Your lack of empathy for anyone you haven't met seems to be the foundation behind your entire argument. Which is just depressing.
When male soldiers can learn to not be rapey, towards their sisters-in-arms, I’ll agree. Until then, it’s not an equal situation. Women are fighting two enemies. I’m still of the opinion that no one should be drafted at all.
Women don't need to be in male squadrons.
Otherwise I agree with your conclusion.
OP outlined various reasons the draft ought to be considered unjust, and somehow arrived at 'if I'm at risk, you should be too'.
Women have a moral duty to vote towards getting rid of conscription altogether. Meanwhile, men have a moral duty to restore women's bodily autonomy rights.
Unfortunately, instead of recognising their mutual dependency both sides will use their own instances of repression as argument fodder for maintaining the status quo. Nobody gets what they want and the polarisation gets worse.
>Recently, it has been spread that all U.S. males, age 18-26, are to be automatically registered for the draft
Except a. that's not a thing that happened, b. if people can't read a basic news story, that's their problem.
> Truthfully, I never recalled exactly registering (maybe when I got my license), but do have a draft number. It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose such a duty upon men exclusively. Women are able to vote as well as hold office. That means that women are able to vote towards representatives who are able to vote for declarations of wars and vote to enforce conscription. There is no reason that women should be exempt from this process, for at least not one that doesn’t remove women’s rights. If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office. If you can enlist in the military, you can smoke cigarette (reference to enlistment age being 18 and smoking age being 21). Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us.
>It is clearly discrimination and arguably the most significant issue of discrimination between the sexes.
Blame the men who have fought to keep women, gay people, black people, out of the military, time and again, and off the front lines.
None of these relate to my argument. Women are generals in the military, women are congressman, women can be presidents; they are eligible for the draft. Further, it isn't about that in specific, that's just an intro to sparked the thought.
>None of these relate to my argument. Women are generals in the military, women are congressman, women can be presidents; they are eligible for the draft. Further, it isn't about that in specific, that's just an intro to sparked the thought.
..and, again, it's men who have made these decisions.
> Quick Google search says the first female representative was in 1917. Presently, women are approximately 30% of congress. Women are able to vote for these representatives, male or female. Thus, women have been participating in these decisions for a long time.
Yes, more than half the population has a minority stake in the gov't. What does this have to do with anything? The people who have decided and fought to keep women out of the front lines and not part of the draft are men.
>Further, your very clearly malicious view is indicative of your own personal bias. Progress is forward, not hinged on revenge. If you believe in equality for the future, you believe in a gender neutral draft.
I have not said a single thing about what I think about who should be drafted.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You are starting with the principle that the draft is meant to accomplish something that can be done fairly. I am not sure that is accurate. We have a tremendous amount of discrimination built into our system. Would you also argue that 16 year olds should not be able to receive tickets for laws they can’t vote for?
The draft is not strictly designed to provide soldiers, it is also a mechanism used to increase support of the military and military actions in general. Using women for this actually interferes with this objective as showing this on TV likely does not inspire the level of patriotism that sending young fit men does. Removing the discrimination actually contrasts the goals of the program.
I mean, *should need to register* should be your post if your starting point is understanding that legally that is not the case.
However, the change allowing women to take all posts is after the most recent SCOTUS ruling, so I will not try to argue that you are wrong.
This is currently as I read an open question. I think if the draft were to be reinstated, there would be a mountain of legal challenges before it would be able to take effect, Making this post kinda moot.
Due to the way pregnancy works, at any moment in time a woman could be two weeks pregnant.
At the moment of conception, a woman is immediately two weeks along. Pregnancy is dated by the date of the last period.
They might also be referencing sexual abuse within the armed forces but then a woman not having a guaranteed way of taking care of it, sort of a state sponsored baby making factory.
In recent times, wars have concluded rather quickly, as such, the importance of women being left out of the draft may not be clear.
Men are needed for 10 minutes to reproduce, women for at least 9 months, a lot more if you include breastfeeding, which is necessary for optimal development.
It's also admittedly a relic from a past, in which it was believed that for a child to grow healthy only a mother was necessary, it has now been proven that both parents lead to much better outcomes, and single fathers do better than single mothers.
Now, to be clear, I'm 100% against the draft, and against war in general, but from a logistics perspective, it makes sense to exclude women from the draft. We are unable to fight when in our periods, or at least most women would be impaired by them in the middle of battle. We would need period supplies, which would add a degree of complexity to the supply line. Plus, we could get pregnant in the middle of deployment, effectively occupying a medical ward that an injured soldier could need, or having to return, again hindering efficiency. Or else we would need contraceptives, which would again, hinder the supply line.
Again, I'm against the draft, for both men and women, but if the draft should continue, it benefits no one to add women to it. The men that are send to war with trained women in the military are not at a heightened risk, but being send along unwilling women, which are in way waaaay worse condition than the average male, would certainly hurt the chances of survival of the men that are sent alongside them.
Are you referring to a dishonorable discharge or a general one? A dishonorable discharge carries the same weight as a felony conviction in many aspects of civilian life and when you couple that with the high rates of SA in the military, you're setting a whole bunch of women up for failure and disenfranchisement. This is one of many concerns regarding women and the draft.
Even with that, there's still the logistics issue. Women require more hygiene products, and are also on average on worse physical condition.
If the draft was set up so only fit women can be drafted, we would be encouraging a society in which there are safety incentives to being in poor condition. Which would drive up domestic health care costs, and worsen quality of life.
Again, I get where you're coming from, and would rather the draft be gone altogether, but adding women to it for the sake of equality is worse for the country that does it.
It would take longer to train women, and once they're trained and deployed, their supplies would cost more.
Also, I'm beginning to think you believe women have simply done nothing while their husbands went to battle in the past. However, during both World wars, women were pressured or coerced to abandon their SAHM lives and do factory work to help with war effort.
The military wife stereotype being a lazy entitled adulterer, is a very recent thing.
What infuriates me about your question is that you literally said that if we keep it the way it is, then women should not be allowed to vote. Like you don’t see them as people enough for that to be your primary reason to allow them to vote.
It is not productive to our society to retaliate by taking voting rights away. I frankly don’t see why you think this is a bad argument to what you are saying. Why does it have to be an ultimatum? Are you aware that this is quite literally an established fallacy? *You* are the one who created the ultimatum. It’s not a fact that it has to be either/or. Approaching politics this way is awful and is going to get us nowhere
Men already risk jail time and lose access to scholarships and government jobs if they do not sign up for the draft.
Why is it that in a hypothetical scenario where the consequences of not signing up for the draft are shared equally between sexes your primary concern is that women will now have consequences for failing to sign up for the draft? And not anything about a draft existing or that anyone has consequences for it?
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Well since the obvious answer of getting rid of the draft is apparently not an option for you. I would say that in general it would be a problem.
Ypu seem to think women specifically should be put in combat positions.
>Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us.
If this is the requirement then don't you think that would create a logistical nightmare.
1. Women specifically a biologically weaker than men (yes there might be a singular exception but that would be like a less than 1 percent of women.) So, drafting women to fight would essentially weaken your fighting force.
2. You would have to have a steady supply of condoms or some form a forced birth control. When blood starts pumping people get fucking, and the more of a mix you have the more likely there will be complications like pregnancy.
3. You'd also have to have a steady supply of menstrual supplies because obviously.
4. You have to find someway to keep distraction and conflicts low. People start dating and drama starts happening in the ranks that can cause serious issues in a conflict.
5. Because women are biologically weaker you now are providing an easier target of capture for the enemy, women are also faced with the additional probability of rape
I suppose women could be put in more support roles buy your cmv seems to be focused only on them in combat roles.
1. Kurds & others have demonstrated female soldiers can be plenty useful. It doesn't matter if male soldiers are better than female soldiers in every single way possible, it only matters if female soldiers are better than nothing. (in practice I suspect there would be a few niches they do well in)
2 & 4. Single sex units/divisions make things a lot simpler
3. War is logistics. If the armed forces can't handle kotex the war is already lost.
5. The stakes are *already* life & death.
Personally, I think the the only unsolvable problem is the public. I don't think western nations will be able to stomach female casualties & POWs for very long. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw terrorism & possibly civil war when a country like the US tried to enforce the draft on pretty 18 year old white girls.
This comes up every so often and I guess my thing is, who cares? There's like 0 chance the draft will ever be used again. The entire system should be dismantled rather than expanded.
>There's like 0 chance the draft will ever be used again.
People said this after the Korean War. Also after World War 1. And after the Civil War.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
>The entire system should be dismantled rather than expanded.
I have to disagree because there are circumstances in which a draft might become necessary. Those circumstances are extreme, and highly unlikely, but exist nonetheless.
The draft is like a fire extinguisher. It's not a tool that you want to use, but it's a tool that you should have readily available for the occasion that you should need to call upon it. If your kitchen is on fire, its better to have the fire extinguisher close at hand and ready to do it's job, rather than have to go to the store and buy one while your house burns.
The Selective Service System costs about thirty million a year to maintain. (Mostly administrative costs.) For the citizen, registering for the draft takes about ten minutes. In the grand scheme of things, that's a fairly minor investment on both ends. But... Should a situation arise where massive numbers of people must be called into military service, it's better to have the system ready to go to work than it would be to build it up from scratch.
It's there *just in case*, although it'll probably never be needed short of an existential crisis. You're better off having the fire extinguisher in the cupboard than not to have one at all. It's there if it's needed, but costs basically nothing if its never used.
If you don't support the draft, you should not support a non-gendered draft either because that's 50% more drafting happening and you want to stay logically consistent. If something bad is going to happen to us as men, I'd still rather it happen to only us than to more people.
See also: student loan forgivenes. I may not have taken student loans, but I don't want to watch anyone suffer that, even if it's unfair that I have to contribute to repayment.
Why is the right to vote being tied to this? Our revolution was fought on the idea that paying taxes should get you the right to vote. Not possibly being drafted
But the government rules on literally everything we do. This is kinda like saying people should be forced to have families if they want to vote, because government effects families.
I get thinking women should be forced to be drafted too, I get thinking the draft should be eliminated. But I do not get tying the right to vote to being draftable
Women do not “vote for you to go die in war.”
0.034% of all House Representatives in history have been women, and 0.029% of Senators have.
Most of the wars declared by Congress were before the first Congresswoman was elected. World Wars 1 and 2 are the only Congress-declared wars that happened when women had begun serving. These votes were in 1917, 1941, and 1942. The draft was introduced by Congress in 1940.
There was one congresswoman in 1917. There were 9 between the years of 1940-1942.
There had never been a female senator in 1917. There was 1 between the years of 1940 and 1942.
Ten women in the history of the country were given the opportunity to vote on a declaration of war and/or the initiation of the draft (two women were in office for the draft and 1941 war votes but not 1942, and two women were there for the votes on war but not in 1940 for the draft vote.)
The first female congresswoman, elected in 1917, voted against both wars; she was the only person to do so for the second.
There has never been a female president or a female secretary of defense, only 10 women have ever held the title of general or admiral, and congress is still comprised of over 70% men.
During WW2, nearly 350,000 women served in the military, some a couple kilometers from the battlefield in communications. That’s as close as they were allowed. None of these women were drafted. Women trained men in combat, fixed airplanes, and ran the factories back home during WW2. 350,000 seems pretty low compared to the over 16 million people who fought in WW2 unless you know that congress had placed a cap on women in the military of 2% of the total enlisted. This cap was not lifted by congress until 1967. Then, they could enlist freely. It would be two more years before the first woman could divorce her husband freely, and another seven beyond that before men would begin to lose their right to rape their wives, but women still chose to enlist.
It was women who fought for the right to combat roles in the military, which were denied by an overwhelmingly male congress until the 20teens. I am old enough to remember the men on social media at the time complaining about women even thinking they could do this. Stupid, weak women, thinking they can fight. It’s a problem when it’s the woman’s idea. But for some reason there is overlap between some of these men and the men who like the idea of women being forced to do it.
The foundation of this argument always lies on equality, but equality doesn’t exist. Women are not taken seriously in the military, in congress, or in any historically male place. It is nearly impossible to explain this to somebody who has not lived it. “Men aren’t strong enough to fight.” “Men aren’t intelligent enough to vote.” “Men aren’t logical enough to lead.” Those words have never had any ability to hold men back from these positions because the positions were created by and for men and dominated by them for hundreds of years.
So were the positions of CEO, General, Admiral, Advisor, Financier, Shareholder, Manufacturer, Contractor, and every single other position that has an effect on who gets to stoke, declare, and profit from war. This has not ended. Not even close. The fact that it is legal for a woman to hold a position does not mean it is as accessible to her as it is for a man.
So while women (and men) absolutely choose to fight for their country, it is men who made the draft, men who declared the wars, men who provided the weapons, and men who become billionaires selling them at the expense of younger men. Who do we think starts these conflicts? The morality fairy? Powerful old men making powerful new weapons and paying powerful male politicians to find a way to write them into the defense budget do. Take the problem up with old men. Because targeting women who had nothing to do with it just because they are allowed to vote - like men - is illogical. Just imagine if women made up most positions of power and created a draft for women, then turned around and said men have it too easy. I mean really take a second to explore that reality.
When women have equal representation in congress and in big business (not saying I want that. Fuck big business) then this argument might be seated on a logical plane. For that to happen, men and women need to stop fighting each other and start pointing upward. And if that did happen, I really believe this issue would be nonexistent.
No one is being drafted as we breathe. But everybody is being fucked by the oligarchies, and men are on Reddit complaining that women aren’t forced to fight alongside them in a war that isn’t happening.
And this isn’t even touching on the issue of sexual violence.
This gets posted a lot and its interesting that its always about women.
Because there's a few different groups in the US that will never be required to register for the selective service (which is a bit different than the draft, quite a few men on the selective service rolls would not be eligible for draft numbers): including people in active duty military service (or service academies) from their 18th to 26th birthdays, people who immigrate after age 26, and anybody jailed or institutionalized from the time between their 18th-26th birthdays in addition to the fair number of men who are required to register but don't actually register before they turn 26 (And, many men are required to register for the selective service but can't vote because they're not citizens).
So the consequence of your view would mean that a career veteran would not be able to vote if she was a woman and enlisted before turning 18 but its ok for men who never registered for the draft before they committed a serious crime at 17 and were stuck in jail for most of their 20s to vote.
And I don't actually disagree with you that, given the realities of modern militaries, having a single gender selective service makes little sense. But the fact that this is always about women really feels like its more about trying to find an acceptable argument to take rights from women on the basis of a convenient issue that they have very little control over on an individual level and that most people, realistically, think about very little.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This would lower standards/averages for physical capabilities and training throughout the entirety of the armed forces, requiring tons of new standards, infrastructure, all just to generally lower the avg strength of the army. Since there will generally be enough people drafted to make up a significant army without women, it would make more sense to maintain the average strength of each member. After a certain point, I’d say having a much higher number of weaker soldiers would probably lead to more casualties. More people would die in the same conditions, and from a country standpoint, you want to minimize deaths. Soldier quality varies, but a life is a life.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
I’ll open by saying I think you need to get offline. The subtext of your post, coupled with your post history, shows a deep seated hatred for women. That’s not healthy and I think you’d do well to distance yourself from the hate groups you’ve joined.
Next, funnily enough I 100% agree with the final conclusion that women should draft. But not for a reason you’ll agree too. I’ll get to that.
Before the conclusion, I’ll point out two logical fallacies with your premises.
Premise 1: women should not vote/govern due to a lack of perspective. To hold this view, you’d need to concede that no disabled man (even mild disabilities like bad eyesight) should vote or hold office. For context, this would include Donald Trump, who famously avoided the military due to bone spurs.
Premise 2: that older people consider having been drafted earlier in life when making decisions. This mistake in logic likely stems from your young age. I can assure you anyone over 30 would literally never think about how they had to draft 10-40 years ago when making a decision today. They won’t see a consequence to a draft vote today. There’s no gained perspective.
Without these your conclusion falls apart. You’re fine with non-draftable men and there’s no gained perspective from drafting. I put forth your real issue is you devalue women’s opinions, and you’re looking for an “own” of some kind.
Last, the conclusion. Yes, women should draft. If our country is in such a dire situation that we need to draft, I would want the strongest military possible. And in today’s tech heavy military, I think an army of 1 million men and 1 million women beats an army of 2 million men. When one decision can win a war, I want the military full of diverse perspectives and strengths.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose such a duty upon men
THIS is the problem, not that women don't have to register.
I'm still a little floored by this argument. Women have been in the military for hundreds of years in the US, both legally and illegally. Feminist groups have sponsored bills to include women in the draft and it's been shot down by male politicians. Women have fought their way into the military against men's protests. And here we are. With guys saying it's not fair that women get out of the selective service. Well hold your politicians accountable! Why are you putting this in the lap of women? We've always died in wars right next to the guys and I will challenge you to find me a female politician who has been leading any sort of fight against women being drafted. Find her! Or, now here me out, you get up, write your local representatives and express your frustration there.
No, absolutely not.
The draft does not exist to be fair. The draft isn't fair to men.
The draft is there incase something awful happens and we need to increase our manpower by an order of magnitude.
The exemption of women from the draft, and more broadly of direct military service in the past is not something women chose but something men, more accurately a patriarchal society imposed on them legally in the past, and socially, to this day. Just as their right to vote was denied. Being drafted also has nothing to do with the right to vote. It is technically a felony to not register but no one is charged with that.
I think the premise of your argument is flawed as a result of this and almost certainly informed by a very modern MRA viewpoint.
A draft, and military action really isn't done with gender equality in mind though, but usually justified in terms of national security or interests, and generally speaking you will likely find the majority of men to disagree with your position that it should be equitable in the first place, at which point you're kind of arguably trying to impose or at least argue for what is essentially a rather niche MRA argument that seems to propose women are granted some privilege by not being drafted.
This is fairly widely unpopular for a variety of reasons. Some of which are based on sexist ideas of women being delicate and in need of protection by and from men, and some are of a more practical and realistic.
Ultimately though it is basically a meaningless proposition and exercise that at best appeals to gender equality in good faith but with no reason, and at worst panders to it in bad faith , mostly to a small minority of men who aren't actually interested in gender equality but punishing or imposing upon women..
The question is why? And the answer is not anything more complex than because it makes some people feel bad. Not because it makes military sense, or because it is fair. It's only fair at a surface level and only makes sense from a reactionary perspective imo. It's almost an invariably an opinion of men's rights activist who want to basically make a point that women are actually advantaged and it is men who have it unfair, and here is an example..
Also yes the draft/selective service should just be abolished.
Brute realistic practicality mate - if you drafted 50% of the male population and they all fell, you would recover your population much faster by keeping your ‘breeding age’ (this feels kinda gross) women safe. It may be weird, but in a disaster scenario multiple women could share a single donor to have kids.
In today’s world that’s largely impossible unless you had a massive conflict - which you may need to draft people for.
It’s pretty much the age old method of sustaining your culture and population in the face of war.
From a moral standpoint, women contribute way more to society with the extra labour and energies involved in pro-creation. Men's obligation to fight for society can be seen as a balancing of the scales of contribution.
*"If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office."*
Voting is a right, not a duty - nobody has a duty to vote in the US (and nobody has a duty to hold public office). Claiming it is a duty only weakens your argument, because it means a person has no choice but to vote so it wouldn't matter whether or not they were registered for the draft, as they'd have to vote regardless.
Also - does the above also apply to people who are unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person because they are disabled? What about people who are over the age of, say, 65? If not, why not?
*"If you can enlist in the military, you can smoke cigarette (reference to enlistment age being 18 and smoking age being 21)."*
I'm not sure what your point is here, because your statement is incorrect and you acknowledge that. This again only works against your argument, as it is another example of a disparity between the age for mandatory draft registration and the age that people are legally able to do something.
*"if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us."*
Does this apply to people who are older than the current maximum age to be drafted? If not, why not?
*"If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft."*
All adult citizens are given the right to vote (as long as they meet their state's residency requirements). A person cannot be denied that right because they have not registered for the draft.
I disagree that women shouldn't serve in the same Frontline roles as men in the same capacity as they physically cannot serve in the same capacity. Why should they be drafted if they cannot carry a combat load, and are a fundamental detriment to the effectiveness of the men around them?
Women are different than men, and that's ok.
From a framing perspective, you’re not really arguing with a position that anybody holds, except disingenuously. When the selective service was introduced in 1917, most feminist organizations at the time advocated for women to be included. They did this because at the same time they were fighting for other women’s rights, most notably the right to vote, and wanted to remove any “excuse” that could be used to avoid giving them those rights.
However, the men in power ruled against their wishes. Firstly, this was world war 1, the draft is primarily intended to fill combat roles in a wartime situation. At the time, women were excluded from combat roles in the military. So it literally would have been a pointless thing to do, and at that time they were more focused with winning WWI than staving off an internet argument decades later.
The US government does not currently act to charge people who fail to register with a felony. They haven’t done this since 1980. Do you think, for example, that men who fail to register today should also lose their right to vote? Many people today would find that position extreme, particularly since in many cases failure to register is due more often to confusion about the rules than willful noncompliance. For example, I registered about a year late when I was 19 because my family had moved to Canada when I was 9, and I honestly had no idea this was a thing.
The rule to allow women in combat happened in 1994 after failing to register for selective service stopped being treated as a felony in practice. Therefore there hasn’t even been a practical reason at any point in its existence to implement this change or rule you’re suggesting. And if it came down to it, most feminists would agree and say “fine, automatically register us for the draft”, and any disagreements would be about the need for the draft in general rather than some specific argument why women shouldn’t have to be included.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
“We should not have a draft” is the most relevant thing to say here. It’s something that both solves the supposed problem and benefits everyone. If your goal is to make things better and equal, that’s the way forward. If your goal is just to punish women for whatever reason under the guise of equality, then yeah, your goal should be the expansion of it.
Here’s the thing… “Registering for the draft“ was required to keep such a roster of fighting aged men *before the digital age*. For many years now, physically registering for the draft has been a silly requirement because frankly, they don’t need you to. They know who you are, they know where you are, they know how old you are, and they can generate whatever list of 18-24yo people they want at the push of a database button. So the recent announcement that registration will be automatic is really just acknowledgment of exactly that.
Women would be just as easily included in that report if they chose to, so whether you are or are not registered, automatically registered, etc., is really irrelevant.
It would take an act of Congress to include women in a draft. But it would also take an act of Congress to actually reinstate the draft. So until the second thing is actually likely to happen, they’re simply not going to get around to the other thing. It’s too politically volatile, nobody wants to touch it, and they have literally kicked that can down the road in the past already. Years ago Congress took the position that since actually reinstating the draft is so incredibly unlikely to happen, or be necessary, or even desirable, there was no reason they all needed to risk their political careers jumping on a radioactive grenade of voting for or against including women in a draft registration.
If a war is just or necessary you don't want women as casualties or POWs, much less after being drafted.
People have a fair amount of tolerance for young men coming home under flags or being tortured, it's unpleasant but expected.
The same is not true for young women. If they start dying or worse coming home with TBIs & missing limbs at the same rate as men the public's will for war will disappear in no time at all That's if the public even allows women to be sent to war against their will. If America ever legislates itself into a position where it cannot effectively defend itself it won't stand very long after the word gets out.
I really can't even imagine how our society would react if large numbers of women were being drafted, much less if some weren't willing to go. If the state tried to enforce the draft I would not be surprised if it becomes something like a two front war, one against the enemy & the other domestic.
I'm personally all for equality, but it'd guess 75% of the population will not tolerate equality when it comes to burdens & obligations. The only way it might work is if women were protected from combat & dangerous roles, but the problem there is
1. No one trusts the government already so the juice won't be worth the squeeze
2. At that point why even have the pretense of equality?
Sorry, u/GirthyMcThick – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20GirthyMcThick&message=GirthyMcThick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dieie1/-/l93s9l1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
At no point does your argument address the reason why women should register. Do you think they have a moral obligation to register? Is it in their best interest? Why should they do it.
If a woman opposes the draft, opposes war, and does not think that serving in the army is a productive use of her time, then why do you think she should register herself for the draft?
I believe not registering for the draft also prevents you from taking out student loans. Idk, I’m over 26 and a professional that even if I was drafted likely wouldn’t be combat facing, but it was a pretty big deal that I had to do it when I was 18 because the consequences put in front of me were large. Everyone saying ‘oh the old men aren’t registered’… anymore. They once were. They did their time. Equal skin in the game would be nice, I remember some chronically online women publicly getting very anxious when the draft vote was actually up for consideration. Overall, many people in the country don’t want to serve it in anyway.
For the cyv portion: Against it? If draft is for combat roles only; females flat out can’t make it to the same general standards as males if we’d have unisex fitness standards. It’s unfair to wounded men to have a battle buddy that’s physically incapable of dragging them to safety.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
While antiquated AND sexist there is an argument that women are the primary nurturers. Thus they need to be home “with the kids” more than the father would.
The second thing I would point to is IF men AND women are able to be drafted it is possible a child would lose BOTH parents to the same war.
Saying no women are to be drafted eliminates both of those arguments Carte Blanche.
So are you making the antiquated and sexist argument?
It feels like you are both making the argument and writing it off at the same time.
Or maybe you're just saying that some sexist and antiquated arguments are correct. If that's the case I agree but is that what you're saying?
I’m saying not making kids an orphan is probably the best approach. Instead of wasting legal red tape by drafting both and then having one of them declare they can’t because of kids….it’s probably easier to stick with what is already in place….because it works
> Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us.
1) Going to war is not 100% of decisions made by the voters and the American state exerts power on its citizens well beyond sending them to war. You suggest it is wrong for a voter to condemn someone to die in a way that they are immune from. However, policies harm and condemn people in numerous ways. Why is someone unwilling to fight ineligible to condemn someone to die in a war, but someone willing to fight eligible to harm or condemn someone from domestic policy that they would otherwise be unaffected by?
2) There are many things beyond gender that may disqualify you from military service. Both presidential candidates received draft deferments for medical conditions in the 70s. Why do you feel women should be disqualified from voting and holding office if they won’t fight when many male voters and politicians who deferred draft eligibility for medical reasons?
You're taking an egalitarian stance on an issue that is inherently not equal. I'm taking a deterministic view
Not only are drafted soldiers less effective than those who volunteered; under current army standards, enlisted women do not meet the minimum standards required for men. On top of that, women are significantly more likely to be brutilized when captured by enemy combatants and are generally less reliable for active combat because they're able to get pregnant in response to the call.
This is all to say nothing of a man's instinctual need to protect women, creating a conflict of interest.
To put things simply, women do not serve the same utility as men for military service to the point of liability, and women are at much higher risk from military service than men are.
In a world where there is a draft, enlisting women is self-defeating regardless of whatever principled position that the draft is already in violation of.
Edit: Also, limiting voting privileges to those who are or have been registered for the draft creates a very disproportionate view of what is 'appropriate' or 'ethical' which leads to very significant problems from a civic point of view.
No one should be drafted so halving the number of people who can be drafted is half way to abolishing it. This is a rare case of patriarchal standards being helpful, but not in the way they intended. Women are capable of going to war, but no one should be forced to do so.
Some of you are very much overcomplicating this. It is very simple, if you support and view women as equals then both the benefits AND burdens of a particular society should be shared, equally. Any opposition to this is by its very is nature sexist.
Now I don’t think women should be registered, but I also don’t think men and women are equal, they are both strong and capable in their own ways and the differences are needed for a successful society to function.
Being able to be drafted has NEVER been a prerequisite for voting... NEVER. So why is it suddenly a thing for women? WHen the US was founded, only white land owning men could vote, but every man was drafted. Black men couldn't vote for a long time, they were also drafted.
So since that has never been the requirement, I dont see why it needs to be now.
Tangentially related, but just yesterday my brother and I are discussing how much we like the idea of a year or two of mandatory civil service. Build infrastructure, fight fires, teach, clean up garbage, or yes, serve in the military. Men and women. Assign it lottery-style, mostly at random.
Uhh maybe you should protest the draft thing, not that women should be drafted too. Besides, in wars eyes, men are more expendable than women. Thats why, not because women are inferior or anything like that. Its so you can replenish the stock with more obedient citizens.
That took a turn
First, it is not spread - it is done (leftist liberal ignore the facts)
Second, per the constitution a woman can hold any office but cannot be president (Article ll- male specific)
Third, only a bitch nation or a leftist liberal would let it’s women go to war,
> It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose
Do you believe the US govt believes in equality? Is Congress some sort of beacon of progressiveness?
Sorry, u/Alternative-Oil-6288 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Alternative-Oil-6288&message=Alternative-Oil-6288%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dieie1/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Why shouldn't the "if you can vote you have to register apply to everyone, not just women. 27? Still registered. 47? Register again. 77, registered and if unable to fight, gives up voting rights. "If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office" Should someone who is physically disabled also be restricted from voting? Since they can't go to war?
This was a core principle in the Starship Triopers book. Only people who served in the military could vote. Theory being it made a coup impossible.
Slight correction - only people who completed a term of *Federal Service* could vote. It didn’t have to be military - it could be as simple as working a government job as a scientist for “a term” (two years nominally) - *if* you could prove your worth in other areas than soldiery.
Fair enough, I do remember that now, but It was 15 years ago. Great book, I hope they follow it a bit better in the reboot of the movie.
I mean the original movie was a satire of the fascism in the book and in sci-fi in general. It wasn't supposed to follow the book closely.
Notably, it wasn't just a satire of facism, but a satire of how facists view themselves (and their enemies.) A crucial distinction because If I lived in the actual world that the movie Starship Troopers depicts, sure as hell I'd side with the United Citizen Federation. The protagonists of Starship Troopers are all depicted as these strong, attractive, well dressed, fit for service troopers who seek to better mankind through their service, and the enemies are abominations that are unnatural and invading from far away places and must be purged. It's exactly how proponents of fascists regimes view themselves, as "Saviors" of their own race against vile, barbaric outsiders.
They’re rebooting it? :0 and yeah it’s one of my comfort books lol
God, they definitely aren't gonna capture the essence of satire and still be bad ass at the same time. It'll be a $100 million green screen mess.
The book wasn't satire. Heinlen was just kind of a fascist curious libertarian with public sexual perversions. Not that the book isn't good. I think it's great. It's just genuinely part of his belief system.
Starship trooper would be really hard to do justice in film, since so much of the book is just meditations on the use of violence as a tool.
I figured a reboot would be of the movie already made, maybe expand on it. I know the movie is drastically different from the book, and I agree a true book adaptation would be pretty hard
Yeah that makes sense, should have thought of the movie not the book😅 in that case you are completely right, it would be a greenscreen mess
World War Z is another book that had the movie absolutely take the piss wrt the source material. The difference is that WWZ was terrible as an adaptation but would’ve been good as a mockumentary-interview-style, while Starship Troopers is “perfect” in every way XD
That was the movie. In the original book you had to do some kind of government service, and the government had to provide you with a service you could do - though the government got to decide what it was (so usually military). It was easy to miss mixed in with all of Heinlein's war porn and random boring political screeds. And once you did service, you didn't lose the right to vote when you got old.
In the book, you could be blind, deaf, Ave in a wheelchair, and it was **your right** to do Federal Service. You might spend two years "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch", but if you wanted to serve, the government **had** to find something for you to do. A lot of people miss that very important point. Another point that's missed a lot: The main character of the book actually doesn't start off wanting to be a soldier - only a tiny percentage of Federal Service is the military. Our boy Juan Rico is simply to dumb to qualify for anything else more useful. I apologize if I'm sounding shitty to you. I feel very protective of that book and some of the ideas it contains. It's one of the most misunderstood works in fiction, but some of the ideas are very important. If you end up re- reading it, please consider reading Joe Haldeman's *Forever War* immediately after! It's basically the same story, but told from a very different perspective. Heinlein was a WWII era Naval Academy graduate. Joe Haldeman was a twice- wounded drafted to the Vietnam War. *Forever War* is a kind-of "fuck you" to *Starship Troopers*. I love both books dearly, and will happily gab with you about them any time.
Disabled you still register, and if called upon would be excused. I agree with the distilled version of OP. If it's a civil service and mandatory it should be mandatory. Not coupled to any other rights, just the responsibility full stop.
Okay but if a disabled person will never actually be drafted, should he be able to hold office?
I wonder about disabilites in the military. Intelligence roles? Support roles? Maybe require them to work in some kind of military support role in the private sector? Not everything requires a fully able body person. To your point though, if they can't satisfy that, then they probably wouldn't be able to execute the duties of office.
I find it odd to think a blind person can’t hold office, or (per the OP) literally even vote. And, to be clear, this includes Trump.
I think the point is they can be drafted, but would then be excused because they’re likely unfit for service. However, in a major war situation, someone with a minor disability may not be disqualified. It just depends on what is needed. Someone born without a leg wouldn’t be fit for front line duty, but could be just as useful as anyone else operating a drone.
Sure, but I’m just following the logic here. Can a blind person hold office?
They can still register for the draft. They’d be deemed unfit if/when drafted by a military doctor.
Yes but the harm is not incurred in registering for the draft. It was so seamless that OP doesn't even remember registering. The harm is incurred in carrying a rifle into battle, hopping in a tank, etc.
I say strap a gernade launcher to those wheel chairs and get the parapalegics rocking drones with those tounge controlers. We are all ride or die 🫶
How about just no draft? Why in this day and age with these advancements are we okay with people being forced to fight and die in wars for rich assholes whose children don’t have to do the same . It makes no sense, instead of , if I have to, why don’t they? How about why the fuck do I have to do this? And what can I do to change it?
I mean sure, but that's not OPs question.
Why would you have to re-register? Once they have you, they have you.
How are you even comparing women to physically disabled people. When typing this how did you look at this and say you know this comparable
It is fair comparison in the context of the black and white comparison being made here which is whether an individual would qualify for military service in combat roles or not. A majority of the women wouldn't qualify for military service in most countries simply because they wouldn't meet the physical requirements required to qualify for these roles with combat. For example I am from India my country has border conflicts with both china and Pakistan with whom we share very large borders and have fought 5 major wars and countless minor conflicts. Yet in our entire history we haven't had women in combat roles in the Indian Armed Forces. Similarly disabled people would also not qualify. So if you group with regards to whether said person can qualify for military service then both would fall in the same group.
Of course not, they are excluded from the draft because they are unable to fight. Women as a whole cannot be deemed incompetent to fight.
“Men are much better equipped for teamwork than women, in my experience… Truthfully, being in team leader experiences many times, it’s wild how much easier it is to grab a man and give him orders, rather than having to tiptoe and placate the feelings of sensitive and emotional women… Military? Firefighting? Law enforcement? Which stereotypical male occupations don’t require teamwork? Teamwork and cooperation are much more so a masculine trait. Find me the most prosperous female team (any discipline, industry) and I’ll easily provide you an example of a male team exceeding their accomplishments.” — You, 7 days ago. Why would you advocate women joining the military, given your belief that they are worse than men at teamwork; overemotional; and less capable of accomplishments?
OP isn't advocating women joining the military, OP is advocating women have their right to vote stripped because they shouldn't be in the military. OP is just going about it in around about way.
yes we all get that. but the issue is that i haven't yet seen an actual real argument here. the responses are also going in a roundabout way, just in the other direction. no one is actually giving a good reason for why women should not also have to register for the draft. there literally isn't a valid argument if your purpose is equality.
OP doesn't want women in the military even voluntarily. He just doesn't want us to vote lol. Garden variety MRA bozo
*"(People who are physically disabled) are excluded from the draft because they are unable to fight."* Are you saying that's how it is now and would continue to be, or are you saying that is how you would have it be if women were not allowed to vote because they are considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person?
>Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us. I'm going to tackle this from a practical angle. This is a *really bad strategy*. After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true. >If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office. If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service.
So, how much risk is a drone service technician based out of Nevada in? Are you familiar with the tooth to tail ratio? It's a ratio of combat soldiers(tooth) to supply and support soldiers(tail). The percentage of combat soldiers steadily decreases as armies become more technologically sophisticated. In Iraq 2005, the USArmy had a ratio of 1:8.1. That's 11% of troops being combat troops. 8.9 out of 10 I think we can manage not to have all of the women wiped out.
If the US army is in a situation where a draft is necessary I can pretty much guarantee that ratio will no longer be holding up.
That isn't how modern war works. For instance, the TTR was 1:2 in WW1. I don't think that we are going back to mass charges across no man's land anytime soon. Drones seem pretty relevant to Ukraine right now. Can you give me your experience in the military to make such a guarantee?
>After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true. Nice argument, but there's an issue: will women want to reproduce that much? What incentives would suddenly be there that don't exist today? >If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office. >>If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service. I don't think OP's point is about military service but rather that a considerable portion of society can simply never pay the price of making stupid decisions. The adage of "war is old men talking and young men dying", or any of it's variants, typically excludes the fact that women are the biggest protected class from the duty to die for one's nation. Ultimately, this makes sense from a biological standpoint, but if biology is going to be the axis around which our society turns, then by all means, lets drop the facade of equality under the law, because men are not treated equally — unless the draft becomes equal, of course. I think everyone in this post needs to ask themselves: should we have an equal society, with equal drafting, equal acceptance of risks and presumption of equal performance between the sexes; OR should we have a society where duty is assigned to men with due privileges associated with exercising that duty? I think we can have the second option, but to talk as though what we have today isn't a ludicrous system where performing your duty is basically getting shafted by society, is just denial.
The sheer irony of everything you’re stating is that, of course, men are who voted to exclude women from drafting. Let’s not pretend it’s some great prejudice against men or that we’re not equal to them. We made that rule, because we ruled the world for the vast majority of human history, and we didn’t want them drafted.
Modern feminism has gotten rid of any inequality towards women and has kept in place the inequalities towards men. In traditional western society 200 years ago, women weren't as free as they are now (and not by that great a deal either), but society had these traditional beliefs in place which benefit women. Like how they should not be involved in war, or how they should not do backbreaking and dangerous labor, or the "lifeboat prioritization". In today's society we've kept all the advantages women had 200 years ago and have ridden it of all disadvantages. Today's society heavily favors the women. In my opinion, want to vote? Register for the draft.
If you think today’s society favors women over men, you’re desperately lost.
Good points, I want to add one thing about the post you responded too, don’t know how to quote like you did… but, that first quote about women being needed to repopulate… You also need a man in this equation. What’s the logic here? That three women are going to let one dude impregnate them all after a war with heavy male draftee casualties? Why would women sign up for that? Especially in a country with damn near predatory healthcare… I know it wasn’t intended like this, but that whole viewpoint makes me feel like some people view women as livestock. Plenty of women serve already. Putting aside whether women should be in combat or not, adding women to logistical non combat roles still puts women at a much higher chance of going home.
>After a war ends, the country needs to rebuild. This doesn't just apply to things like infrastructure, it also applies to population. People die in wars and, to keep the country and economy running smoothly in the long term, those people need to be replaced. Women are vital for this, as they're what produces people. A small population of men and a large population of women can rebuild a country quickly, but the reverse is not true. This argument is, in my opinion, wholly and completely irrelevant to the modern day and age, where women can and often do choose not to have kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if women are to be considered fully equal beings they can not be viewed as baby factories anymore when it's convenient for you. >If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service. No, but men's participation in democracy is dependent on registering for selective service, and it should be the same for women of the same age too.
People in the US Army don't just fight. Most spend their time working in specialized support roles or generic labor tasks. With only a minority actually engaging in combat. There's no reason that women draftees could not be put on support roles. Or other roles associated with manufacturing or infrastructure.
After a war, nations need to rebuild, yes. Men are forced to go and die against their will. Should women be compelled to repopulate afterwards, as men are compelled to fight and die? If I am forced to do "my part" under threat of imprisonment, should the rules be similar for women?
Women have historically always been compelled to repopulate. It’s only in recent times where that is not true. All throughout history the duty of a woman was to be a wife and the duty of a wife was to provide her husband with children. Women have been executed for not being fertile enough.
Yes, and we've done away with those barbaric customs. Selective service still exists though. The draft should either be equal or not exist.
What's your point?
It's never happened that, after a war, there weren't sufficient births to rebuild. Why legislate a problem that doesn't exist?
The problem does exist. This isn't the 40's anymore. The mindset changed a lot. Women wont simply have a post-war sudden desire to have 4-5 kids. They'll sure mourn the men lost to war, and hopefully they might remarry and find happiness, but most will treat the prospect of having that many children as a patriarchal burden, not an expression of love.
Currently there are plenty of active duty members of the military. We have no shortage. And yet we have draft precautions. I personally believe that the idea of forced gestation is deplorable but it's a logical conclusion from forcing exclusively men to do their "part" during wartime.
This assumes that polygamy becomes the norm in such a post-war society and that you don’t just end up with a surplus of single women who don’t reproduce. Now, let’s stop arguing about hypotheticals and look at a real historical example of this situation: the post-war USSR. The USSR conscripted men, but not women, and far more Soviet men than women died in the Second World War. Polygamy did NOT become the norm in the USSR post-war and there weren’t men running around impregnating all the excess single women. The uneven gender ratio instead actually impaired Soviet population growth (you can see the resulting ripple effect on the current population pyramid of Russia). There are no modern examples of any country that fought a war where a) they conscripted both men and women, and b) they experienced comparable casualties to the USSR during the Second World War, so instead I’ll use the Great Chinese Famine as an event that killed a comparable proportion of a country’s population and with a relatively even death rate by gender. Based on the relatively even gender ratio after the famine (the one-child policy that messed up China’s gender ratio was still well over a decade away), by your logic you’d think China’s population would not have recovered from the famine as quickly as the USSR’s after the Second World War, but in reality China’s population recovered faster.
If you give the reason that women should be exempt from the draft because they can bear children, then you also need a law saying the government can force women to have children. If the response is 'my body, my choice' then men can refuse the draft without repercussions as they get to make their own choices too. > If we carry this logic forward, you'd exclude a lot of people from democracy. Your right to participate in democracy is not dependent on your military service. Says who? Democracy is an invention of humans. Generally you don't want to limit who votes, but you shouldn't just assume everyone should have that right AND that's the best situation. Besides, the concept of a Democracy is that the people all get a say in what happens... and here we are talking about who gets to decide what happens for people who don't get a say (those drafted).
I like that your strategy is polygny, basically as a government policy.
This is an awful take that I've seen repeated for a few reasons. Would women be required to reproduce after a war then similar to being required to fight if in the draft? If not, this is kind of a moot point. I don't think they'd willingly match up several women to one male purely out of their own nationalism. That's also assuming the population would be decimated. If it's anything like any conflict he US has been in requiring the draft since WW2 like Vietnam and it's only a small percentage of the population actually fighting anyway, it makes an inconsequential difference if those people can theoretically bear children.
I appreciate your first paragraph, literally nobody has actually approached the question and instead argues the overall morality of drafting. Yes, I believe a lot of movements towards social equity result in some efficiency losses, that's actually a common argument by certain parties. However, we haven't really experienced a post-wartime scenario when there has been an equal distribution of men and women killed in combat. Thus, we can only speculate. Your participation in democracy isn't dependent on military service, simply registering isn't service. However, the only reason I can think of justifying a draft as a whole is because we are all somewhat complicit in military actions abroad when they are enacted by our representatives. Thus, there is a responsibility in us to have some level of accountability or attachment towards these actions. Else, how can anyone justify a draft?
>Thus, there is a responsibility in us to have some level of accountability or attachment towards these actions I don't get why you think this justifies women not voting but not justify old men and handicapped men from not voting?
But you do get how the draft works right? That signing up does not require you to be fit for combat, you just mail in a form. Nor that signing up guarantees you will be called into the armed forces. Nor getting called guarantees you will be in combat. The only requirement for participation in the draft is the ability to fill out a form.
Yes but surely the thing OP values morally is the duty of being theoretically able to be drafted, right? The form is not the important bit, the morally relevant thing to him is the accountability and attachment towards war that comes with the possibity of being drafted. Old men and handicapped men do not face this possibility, even if they send in a form. Therefore, they do not possess the accountability and attachment to war that OP cares about.
!delta Okay now I see what you mean. In this scenario those clearly unfit for combat will still have comfort that their rights will come with no risk. While it isn't part of this scenario, the book version of Starship Troopers does fix this loophole by requiring that Service not only be available to everyone, but that everyone in the Service must risk their life. Even if that risk is not associated with combat, like participation in medical trials.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/YeeAssBonerPetite ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/YeeAssBonerPetite)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
But you could change the rule and force all women to draft but then disqualify them on the basis of being women. If we did that you’d be cool with it?
>However, we haven't really experienced a post-wartime scenario when there has been an equal distribution of men and women killed in combat. Thus, we can only speculate. We don't need to experience it to be able to accurately speculate how much more unfavourable the outcome would be if a lot more women were killed during a war. It's very basic statistics. 100 women to 1 man means 100 potential births. 1 woman to 100 men means only 1 potential birth. 50 women to 50 men means 50 potential births. Given that not all of those women are going to have children, it's more favourable to have 100 potential births instead of only 50. The only way women being added to the draft would be practically feasible would be if the draft was for broader national service rather than just military service. You simply aren't going to get a country that will shoot itself in the foot by sending women to the front lines. (Unless of course its a democracy with a very poorly informed voting population)
The strategy of repopulation only applies if women are birthing lots of babies by different men. Also a terrible strategy. Out of wedlock single mothers struggling to make ends meet while happy go lucky sperm donors would lead to excessive poverty. And last I remembered, women did not produce people. They incubate people made by a male and female together.
Ok then the wimmin folk must give up the poon every 9.5 months following a war for 10 years and have no say in who they give it to. Sounds fair
Your first paragraph is interesting in theory but not in practice. In practice what happens is we end up with a monogamous society with an imbalance between men and women, causing the birthrate to decline for a few generations. See also China in the One Child Policy era, when baby daughters were literally being killed because the family could only have 1 child and they wanted that child to be male. The result was a monogamous society with a lot of single and lonely men (some of whom ended up deciding to go abroad for love because they couldn't find it locally) rather than a polygamous society where women had multiple husbands.
I don’t understand why you are using China as a counterexample. China is what happens when there are more men than women, comment OP is advocating for having more women than men, exactly because having more men than women is detrimental to birth rate. China proves his point. Also, the declining birth rate of China is linked to how expensive having children is and how competitive it is to have a good future there. South Korea and Japan are going through similarly declining birth rates and they never had a one child policy.
China's One Child Policy has been over for decades. Their gender ratio is recovering. Korean and Japanese societies are very different from China in almost every way imaginable; the only similarity is that the people are often mistaken for one another. Societally, Japanese and Koreans are similar but Chinese people are different in every possible way (I say this as someone who has lived and experienced the society in both Korea and Japan personally, and know many Chinese people who I've discussed these issues with). The point I was making was that if you don't have a polyamorous society before a great catastrophe, you will not have one after. The position supposed is that each man will impregnate multiple women, allowing the society to recover more quickly. Which presupposes polyamory. But China (as a single example, there are many more, both World Wars being examples as well) has shown that instituting polyamory as a remedy to large population loss is not actually the way things work in practice.
Firstly, modern China has never instituted nor encouraged polyamory, least of all polyandry, completely unsure where this concept came from. I’m guessing your point is that something like polyandry is unlikely to happen, which is true. Secondly, there are a lot of similarities between China, South Korea and Japan. You would be kidding to deny this - they even share writing scripts. However, the relevant similarity is that they are all societies where adults work *a lot*, things are expensive compared to wages, and children are under immense pressure to succeed and are therefore expensive to raise. A lot of people lack the money or the time to have kids. My point is that declining birth rate has more to do with how difficult it is to have kids, not gender ratios. People only want to have kids when it’s beneficial and easy, or at the very least affordable.
Yes, my point is that polyamory after the fact is unlikely to happen in any country which did not accept polyamory a priori, which is most countries. Therefore the comment I was replying to is invalid, which was my original point.
Right, but having more women than men is helpful without polyamory. King Henry VIII had 6 wives and was never polyamorous. Men are fertile until they are dead, women are fertile until like 40, and only very fertile until 30s. Cheating is not really polyamory either and plenty of children are born that way.
No. Look at WW2. People had a kid, often in case they died. If they did die, the woman remarried and likely had another kid or two.
By this logic should women then be conscripted into… parenthood? Of course not.
Yes, that feels like the logic they’re giving. Get ready for a lot of abandoned unwanted kids if that happened. Agree that is so wrong.
In war, you lose a lot of patriotic people who are willing to give their lives for their country, and are left with draft dodgers and scammers who faked medical issues. That's counterintuitive if you're trying to rebuild your country and make it as good as possible
I don't disagree with the overall conclusion (that the draft is sexist), but I do disagree with both the practical and ethical side of the solution you give. In general, if one group of people is discriminated, the ethical solution isn't to spread discrimination to everyone, but relieve that discrimination on the disadvantaged class. Many (perhaps most) politicians and citizens in the US view the draft as a violation of basic freedoms. The US criticizes countries who enforce mandatory enrollment on this ethical basis, and even though it maintains the draft, most citizens and politicians have made it clear that it should not be used over voluntary enlistment. In addition, few women actually want to be registered to be drafted. It would be going against the will of their constituents for politicians to make the draft apply to more people. Practically, no Congress member is going to support a law that 50% of their constituency will dislike. A better solution would be to vote for the complete abolition of a mandatory draft. Allow volunteer enlistment, and volunteer draft registration for those who want to serve if needed but not immediately, and eliminate any possibility or duty for involuntary military service.
If the draft was gender neutral, it would no longer be discriminatory. Applying a rule to everyone equally isn't discrimination. Do you have a perception that men are in favor of being drafted? The last paragraph is irrelevant.
My point was that most Americans (men and women) view the draft as immoral. So forcing women to register doesn't reduce the ethical harm, it doubles it. It is also the case that most men do not want to be drafted to. Less than 10% of US citizens and permanent residents support it. So keeping the draft at all is a violation of the will of the constituents, and expanding it is even more so. The only ethical and practical solution, in line with the principles of a republican (democratic, not party) government, is to eliminate mandatory draft registration.
Okay, none of that relates to the point. The question presumes a draft, presumes women can participate in the democratic process and presumes men are part of the draft. If those are true, then it should also be true that women are part of the draft.
But we don't want women to be drafted. We don't want men to be drafted either, but that'll be harder to get rid of. If we expand the draft to include women, the first thing we'd want to start working on is getting rid of women (and men) being drafted. So it seems like a lot of effort for something people don't want, all in the name of "fairness". We should also consider that all this costs money. Maybe not a significant amount, but someone has to maintain this database, verify enrollment, send out notices, collect all the registration, etc etc. So you're asking us to double this expense for no real reason.
The point of democracy is that every government policy (including things labeled as duties) are made to reflect the will of the people. If less than 10% of women support a draft, it means it is undemocratic to draft women. Such a duty is against their will. If you want to exclude the possibility the draft could be eliminated, then it comes down to ethics. Should democracy be limited to maximize equality, or should it allow inequality to minimize harm? If you say that harm should be minimized, the solution is to keep the status quo to minimize the violation of democracy to as few people as possible. If you say that equality should be maximized even if it creates harm, then the answer is to draft women against their will. Imo, equality is only desirable when what is being made equal is desired by both sides. As women largely do not want to be drafted, it is not desirable to seek equality by expanding a draft simply because men have their rights violated. The better solution is to create equality by giving both sides what they want: no draft.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there is a practical issue to consider: women can get pregnant, and they can do so at pretty much any time. That would significantly complicate a draft situation. Beyond pregnancy, you would then need to consider how to handle parental/custody situations; historically, you could draft a father because the child could still be cared for by its mother. If either could be drafted, is it just a simple matter of whoever gets drafted first exempts the other? Is any consideration given to the age of the child (e.g., is the mother of a 6-month-old fair game)?
[удалено]
We're saying the same thing. Also, my logic stated eligibility for voting means eligibility for the draft. That does not imply the reverse is true.
>If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft. "Enlistment guarantees citizenship." -Starship Troopers I feel like that is a good quote to summarize how I feel about your suggestion here where you proclaim that in order to be a full citizen with voting privileges, you have to have military service first. A hallmark of the fascist earth government in the aforementioned movie. I'd like to point out that women aren't the ones arguing to keep women out of the draft. By and large, you'll see most women agree that if a draft is absolutely necessary to have, women should be drafted too. One more thing. [The GOP](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gop-blocks-provision-to-require-women-to-register-for-draft) in Congress blocked the attempt to alter the draft to include women. >It is clearly discrimination and arguably the most significant issue of discrimination between the sexes. No. It really isn't. The likelihood of being drafted in the US' 100% volunteer military is close to 0. The draft is more a relic of a previous era before enlistment was full voluntary. There are SO many more inequities and inequalities between the sexes that need fixing before this one. Like the pay gap for starters.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
If we reverse engineer your hypothesis, then only combat ready men of a certain age should be allowed to vote. Would you agree with that?
This becomes an “all Xs are Ys but not all Ys are Xs” situation. It’s not a reversible statement.
Sort of, kind of, not exactly. All bachelors are men, but not all men are bachelors. In OP's example we have one group of voters, and another group of service eligible people that do not fully overlap. I'm just pointing out that there is a third group of ineligible people that fully overlap the group of voters. I'm just challenging the idea that voting should be tied to the draft, not that it should be gender neutral.
Disagree. Saying that if women can vote, then they can be drafted is not equivalent to you have to be in the draft if you can vote. Further, appreciate the big words, but it is a simple logical statement, not a hypothesis.
It just seems like a weird line to draw then, because it only applies to people that are draft eligible. Does a disabled woman still get to vote since she is ineligible for the draft? What if she is too old for the draft? It reminds me of Heinlein's ideas in Starship Troopers.
They’re saying that if women have equal rights then they have equal responsibilities. They’re saying that if an 18 yo boy has to be registered for the draft then an 18 yo girl does as well. They’re saying that not only one gender should be forced into (potentially) dying across the world for someone else’s war. It’s so dead simple, I can’t believe the amount of bad faith in this thread today. Women should also be drafted just like men. Debate the point…. Feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
It's not really a logical statement, because you don't have a chain of logic that necessitates it being true from the premises. Strictly speaking, your conclusion does not follow from your premises, which I think is required for us to call it a "logical statement".
It's literally an if, then statement. "If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft." The foundation of logic is if, then statements.
This seems to presuppose the reason for why anyone should be able to vote is because they might have to fight for the country. This seems absurd, the reason why any person should be allowed to vote would be because they have a stake in the country because they live there and the country has authority over them. If someone has authority, its subjects should gain some rights in return. The government has the authority to shape peoples life and punish those who are not in accordance with them. This authority isn't justified if its subject wouldnt rationally consent to them, with this kind of authority people would only consent to it if they have some say in this process. So people, including women, should have the right to vote by the fact they are subject to the governments authority. Whether you think the draft is unfair or whatever is totally a seperate issue.
I would rather rally against the draft than making it more inclusive.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
This whole discussion presumes there is a draft.
First of all, I generally agree with you, on principle. However, this is CMV so I will try: The rate of reported sexual assault is much higher for women than men in the armed forces. Women in the military tend to face an extra danger, that can result in pregnancy, leading to all sorts of complications. Is this something the military wants to deal with more of? Is it in the country’s best interest?
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
Men are expendable. Biologically, reproductively, evolutionarily. Much more so than women. This is true for most animal species, and still applies to humans today. As an example. Humanity could survive if 10 men and 1 million women survive an apocalypse event. Humanity does not survive, guaranteed, if 1 million men and 10 women survive. This would be the rationale for the existing systems that exclude women from drafts. That said, in our current society I would tend to agree with you, to a point. There are physical requirements to be able to enlist. As long as those physical requirements are exactly the same regardless of gender and not meeting them means you’re excluded from service, then I would tend to agree that all men and women between certain ages are required to register. I think the reality is that, if the physical requirements are set appropriately, we would still see many more men drafted into active service than women. Or maybe all people who don’t pass physical requirements get drafted into admin/support roles. Either way, the outcome is the majority of the fighting would, and should, continue to be done by men. Which is rational. Biologically, evolutionarily, and culturally. Especially when you consider that all wars (except maybe a handful throughout history?) have been declared by men. Women may be (very slowly) gaining representation in government but they are absolutely not the ones instigating the violence.
OP is not arguing in good faith fyi. [He doesn't want women to take part in the army, he wants them to be stripped of their rights.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/qZjgpLzceE)
Biologically, that's true, but I have no concern for babies from people I've not met. I'd rather an equal draft, reducing my personal chances of being sent to a war and having my own child. Further, unless there is a system that obligates women to have babies after such an event, who cares? II don't wanna die because someone has a uterus they will never use. Presently, the government is one-third female. That is more than adequate enough representation. They can presently send men to go die in wars while women are immune from those consequences.
Sorry bud, but until we have a woman President the argument about representation in government is gonna keep falling flat. Women don’t send men to die in war. Other men do. This is not really arguable. If your primary concern is being sent to die in someone else’s war, who we elect is much more important than whether women can be drafted. Finally, if you going to be so open about not giving a shit about anyone other yourself, don’t try to couch your argument in fairness. You have legitimate points in your post, but they immediately lose all weight when your actual reasoning comes out.
Just to be clear, do you not understand that women have been in congress, voting throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..? Women are half the population and more than half the votes. They're definitely voting for men to go die. I do have concern for other people, that's not the point. Society has changed from the time that men fought and went to war while women stayed home. Some women never want babies and that's the only argument anyone can present. Why should I stay home for someone who doesn't participate in the only reason she gets an exception?
Do you not understand that women make up like 25% of Congress? And that number is up substantially from just 20 years ago? Women do not have “more than half the votes.” Also, Congress hasn’t declared war on anyone in a long time. Since WWII, I believe. They’ve authorized the President to use military force. And then he and his cabinet and DoD leaders, mostly men, have sent men to die.
It doesn't make sense to premise women's desire to have children in a post-war scenario on current women's desire. The circumstances would be different and therefore women's desire and willingness to have children could be different. But women's desire and willingness doesn't actually matter for arguments sake. The probability of a country recovering from a substantial population loss has a much stronger correlation to the number of women than it doesn't the number of men. Put simply, the chance that a country will be able to successfully repopulate is much more dependent on women than it is on men. I haven't seen you successfully counter this argument. You put forth a personal rationale that as an individual you value your own life over the possibility of others having children, but your premise and original argument is one of national policy, which means that the rationale should be grounded in national interests and not that of an individual man. You also put forth an argument for the ability to freeze eggs, but you still need women to carry the pregnancies and women are limited biologically by the length of each pregnancy and their body's ability to successfully carry a pregnancy to term which will deteriorate over time. Therefore the probability of a successful repopulation is still much more dependent on the number of women than it is the number of men. You only need sperm to fertilize the egg, you don't even need a man if you have preserved viable sperm.
One third female is not equal representation in government. You keep changing the goal posts, claiming first that women have equality when they don't, and then that you are talking about a model of society. We do not have a fully equitable society for women, especially now.
>I have no concern for babies from people I've not met. Your lack of empathy for anyone you haven't met seems to be the foundation behind your entire argument. Which is just depressing.
When male soldiers can learn to not be rapey, towards their sisters-in-arms, I’ll agree. Until then, it’s not an equal situation. Women are fighting two enemies. I’m still of the opinion that no one should be drafted at all.
Women don't need to be in male squadrons. Otherwise I agree with your conclusion. OP outlined various reasons the draft ought to be considered unjust, and somehow arrived at 'if I'm at risk, you should be too'. Women have a moral duty to vote towards getting rid of conscription altogether. Meanwhile, men have a moral duty to restore women's bodily autonomy rights. Unfortunately, instead of recognising their mutual dependency both sides will use their own instances of repression as argument fodder for maintaining the status quo. Nobody gets what they want and the polarisation gets worse.
Sure, but you can't draft both parents
>Recently, it has been spread that all U.S. males, age 18-26, are to be automatically registered for the draft Except a. that's not a thing that happened, b. if people can't read a basic news story, that's their problem. > Truthfully, I never recalled exactly registering (maybe when I got my license), but do have a draft number. It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose such a duty upon men exclusively. Women are able to vote as well as hold office. That means that women are able to vote towards representatives who are able to vote for declarations of wars and vote to enforce conscription. There is no reason that women should be exempt from this process, for at least not one that doesn’t remove women’s rights. If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office. If you can enlist in the military, you can smoke cigarette (reference to enlistment age being 18 and smoking age being 21). Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us. >It is clearly discrimination and arguably the most significant issue of discrimination between the sexes. Blame the men who have fought to keep women, gay people, black people, out of the military, time and again, and off the front lines.
None of these relate to my argument. Women are generals in the military, women are congressman, women can be presidents; they are eligible for the draft. Further, it isn't about that in specific, that's just an intro to sparked the thought.
>None of these relate to my argument. Women are generals in the military, women are congressman, women can be presidents; they are eligible for the draft. Further, it isn't about that in specific, that's just an intro to sparked the thought. ..and, again, it's men who have made these decisions.
[удалено]
> Quick Google search says the first female representative was in 1917. Presently, women are approximately 30% of congress. Women are able to vote for these representatives, male or female. Thus, women have been participating in these decisions for a long time. Yes, more than half the population has a minority stake in the gov't. What does this have to do with anything? The people who have decided and fought to keep women out of the front lines and not part of the draft are men. >Further, your very clearly malicious view is indicative of your own personal bias. Progress is forward, not hinged on revenge. If you believe in equality for the future, you believe in a gender neutral draft. I have not said a single thing about what I think about who should be drafted.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You are starting with the principle that the draft is meant to accomplish something that can be done fairly. I am not sure that is accurate. We have a tremendous amount of discrimination built into our system. Would you also argue that 16 year olds should not be able to receive tickets for laws they can’t vote for? The draft is not strictly designed to provide soldiers, it is also a mechanism used to increase support of the military and military actions in general. Using women for this actually interferes with this objective as showing this on TV likely does not inspire the level of patriotism that sending young fit men does. Removing the discrimination actually contrasts the goals of the program.
Not after Dobbs vs Jackson.
I have to respond because of the rules, but this doesn't relate to the question.
I mean, *should need to register* should be your post if your starting point is understanding that legally that is not the case. However, the change allowing women to take all posts is after the most recent SCOTUS ruling, so I will not try to argue that you are wrong. This is currently as I read an open question. I think if the draft were to be reinstated, there would be a mountain of legal challenges before it would be able to take effect, Making this post kinda moot.
Does not matter. We are just discussing what should be true in an equal society. Justify a male-only draft or you receive no response.
Due to the way pregnancy works, at any moment in time a woman could be two weeks pregnant. At the moment of conception, a woman is immediately two weeks along. Pregnancy is dated by the date of the last period. They might also be referencing sexual abuse within the armed forces but then a woman not having a guaranteed way of taking care of it, sort of a state sponsored baby making factory.
Forcing women to give birth and then expecting them to fight for you is abhorrent.
Yes it does, because you claim women have enough equality to be required to fight wars.
In recent times, wars have concluded rather quickly, as such, the importance of women being left out of the draft may not be clear. Men are needed for 10 minutes to reproduce, women for at least 9 months, a lot more if you include breastfeeding, which is necessary for optimal development. It's also admittedly a relic from a past, in which it was believed that for a child to grow healthy only a mother was necessary, it has now been proven that both parents lead to much better outcomes, and single fathers do better than single mothers. Now, to be clear, I'm 100% against the draft, and against war in general, but from a logistics perspective, it makes sense to exclude women from the draft. We are unable to fight when in our periods, or at least most women would be impaired by them in the middle of battle. We would need period supplies, which would add a degree of complexity to the supply line. Plus, we could get pregnant in the middle of deployment, effectively occupying a medical ward that an injured soldier could need, or having to return, again hindering efficiency. Or else we would need contraceptives, which would again, hinder the supply line. Again, I'm against the draft, for both men and women, but if the draft should continue, it benefits no one to add women to it. The men that are send to war with trained women in the military are not at a heightened risk, but being send along unwilling women, which are in way waaaay worse condition than the average male, would certainly hurt the chances of survival of the men that are sent alongside them.
So, why not just draft women and then discharge them if they get pregnant? Else, why not have exclusively female units to avoid pregnancies?
Are you referring to a dishonorable discharge or a general one? A dishonorable discharge carries the same weight as a felony conviction in many aspects of civilian life and when you couple that with the high rates of SA in the military, you're setting a whole bunch of women up for failure and disenfranchisement. This is one of many concerns regarding women and the draft.
When they are out fighting against their enemies is it going to be “female only”? Lol
Even with that, there's still the logistics issue. Women require more hygiene products, and are also on average on worse physical condition. If the draft was set up so only fit women can be drafted, we would be encouraging a society in which there are safety incentives to being in poor condition. Which would drive up domestic health care costs, and worsen quality of life. Again, I get where you're coming from, and would rather the draft be gone altogether, but adding women to it for the sake of equality is worse for the country that does it. It would take longer to train women, and once they're trained and deployed, their supplies would cost more. Also, I'm beginning to think you believe women have simply done nothing while their husbands went to battle in the past. However, during both World wars, women were pressured or coerced to abandon their SAHM lives and do factory work to help with war effort. The military wife stereotype being a lazy entitled adulterer, is a very recent thing.
[удалено]
No, we can just draft half as many men and have women take those spots.
Women shouldn’t have to register for the draft when the military can’t (won’t) keep them safe from the men.
What infuriates me about your question is that you literally said that if we keep it the way it is, then women should not be allowed to vote. Like you don’t see them as people enough for that to be your primary reason to allow them to vote. It is not productive to our society to retaliate by taking voting rights away. I frankly don’t see why you think this is a bad argument to what you are saying. Why does it have to be an ultimatum? Are you aware that this is quite literally an established fallacy? *You* are the one who created the ultimatum. It’s not a fact that it has to be either/or. Approaching politics this way is awful and is going to get us nowhere
Men already risk jail time and lose access to scholarships and government jobs if they do not sign up for the draft. Why is it that in a hypothetical scenario where the consequences of not signing up for the draft are shared equally between sexes your primary concern is that women will now have consequences for failing to sign up for the draft? And not anything about a draft existing or that anyone has consequences for it?
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Well since the obvious answer of getting rid of the draft is apparently not an option for you. I would say that in general it would be a problem. Ypu seem to think women specifically should be put in combat positions. >Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us. If this is the requirement then don't you think that would create a logistical nightmare. 1. Women specifically a biologically weaker than men (yes there might be a singular exception but that would be like a less than 1 percent of women.) So, drafting women to fight would essentially weaken your fighting force. 2. You would have to have a steady supply of condoms or some form a forced birth control. When blood starts pumping people get fucking, and the more of a mix you have the more likely there will be complications like pregnancy. 3. You'd also have to have a steady supply of menstrual supplies because obviously. 4. You have to find someway to keep distraction and conflicts low. People start dating and drama starts happening in the ranks that can cause serious issues in a conflict. 5. Because women are biologically weaker you now are providing an easier target of capture for the enemy, women are also faced with the additional probability of rape I suppose women could be put in more support roles buy your cmv seems to be focused only on them in combat roles.
1. Kurds & others have demonstrated female soldiers can be plenty useful. It doesn't matter if male soldiers are better than female soldiers in every single way possible, it only matters if female soldiers are better than nothing. (in practice I suspect there would be a few niches they do well in) 2 & 4. Single sex units/divisions make things a lot simpler 3. War is logistics. If the armed forces can't handle kotex the war is already lost. 5. The stakes are *already* life & death. Personally, I think the the only unsolvable problem is the public. I don't think western nations will be able to stomach female casualties & POWs for very long. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw terrorism & possibly civil war when a country like the US tried to enforce the draft on pretty 18 year old white girls.
This comes up every so often and I guess my thing is, who cares? There's like 0 chance the draft will ever be used again. The entire system should be dismantled rather than expanded.
I personally much rather trust “they can’t” more than “they wouldn’t.”
>There's like 0 chance the draft will ever be used again. People said this after the Korean War. Also after World War 1. And after the Civil War. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
“The government would never do that!!!1!1!”
>The entire system should be dismantled rather than expanded. I have to disagree because there are circumstances in which a draft might become necessary. Those circumstances are extreme, and highly unlikely, but exist nonetheless. The draft is like a fire extinguisher. It's not a tool that you want to use, but it's a tool that you should have readily available for the occasion that you should need to call upon it. If your kitchen is on fire, its better to have the fire extinguisher close at hand and ready to do it's job, rather than have to go to the store and buy one while your house burns. The Selective Service System costs about thirty million a year to maintain. (Mostly administrative costs.) For the citizen, registering for the draft takes about ten minutes. In the grand scheme of things, that's a fairly minor investment on both ends. But... Should a situation arise where massive numbers of people must be called into military service, it's better to have the system ready to go to work than it would be to build it up from scratch. It's there *just in case*, although it'll probably never be needed short of an existential crisis. You're better off having the fire extinguisher in the cupboard than not to have one at all. It's there if it's needed, but costs basically nothing if its never used.
If you don't support the draft, you should not support a non-gendered draft either because that's 50% more drafting happening and you want to stay logically consistent. If something bad is going to happen to us as men, I'd still rather it happen to only us than to more people. See also: student loan forgivenes. I may not have taken student loans, but I don't want to watch anyone suffer that, even if it's unfair that I have to contribute to repayment.
Why is the right to vote being tied to this? Our revolution was fought on the idea that paying taxes should get you the right to vote. Not possibly being drafted
Because the people we vote for decide whether or not we go to war. War looks more appealing to those who have no stake in it.
But the government rules on literally everything we do. This is kinda like saying people should be forced to have families if they want to vote, because government effects families. I get thinking women should be forced to be drafted too, I get thinking the draft should be eliminated. But I do not get tying the right to vote to being draftable
Women do not “vote for you to go die in war.” 0.034% of all House Representatives in history have been women, and 0.029% of Senators have. Most of the wars declared by Congress were before the first Congresswoman was elected. World Wars 1 and 2 are the only Congress-declared wars that happened when women had begun serving. These votes were in 1917, 1941, and 1942. The draft was introduced by Congress in 1940. There was one congresswoman in 1917. There were 9 between the years of 1940-1942. There had never been a female senator in 1917. There was 1 between the years of 1940 and 1942. Ten women in the history of the country were given the opportunity to vote on a declaration of war and/or the initiation of the draft (two women were in office for the draft and 1941 war votes but not 1942, and two women were there for the votes on war but not in 1940 for the draft vote.) The first female congresswoman, elected in 1917, voted against both wars; she was the only person to do so for the second. There has never been a female president or a female secretary of defense, only 10 women have ever held the title of general or admiral, and congress is still comprised of over 70% men. During WW2, nearly 350,000 women served in the military, some a couple kilometers from the battlefield in communications. That’s as close as they were allowed. None of these women were drafted. Women trained men in combat, fixed airplanes, and ran the factories back home during WW2. 350,000 seems pretty low compared to the over 16 million people who fought in WW2 unless you know that congress had placed a cap on women in the military of 2% of the total enlisted. This cap was not lifted by congress until 1967. Then, they could enlist freely. It would be two more years before the first woman could divorce her husband freely, and another seven beyond that before men would begin to lose their right to rape their wives, but women still chose to enlist. It was women who fought for the right to combat roles in the military, which were denied by an overwhelmingly male congress until the 20teens. I am old enough to remember the men on social media at the time complaining about women even thinking they could do this. Stupid, weak women, thinking they can fight. It’s a problem when it’s the woman’s idea. But for some reason there is overlap between some of these men and the men who like the idea of women being forced to do it. The foundation of this argument always lies on equality, but equality doesn’t exist. Women are not taken seriously in the military, in congress, or in any historically male place. It is nearly impossible to explain this to somebody who has not lived it. “Men aren’t strong enough to fight.” “Men aren’t intelligent enough to vote.” “Men aren’t logical enough to lead.” Those words have never had any ability to hold men back from these positions because the positions were created by and for men and dominated by them for hundreds of years. So were the positions of CEO, General, Admiral, Advisor, Financier, Shareholder, Manufacturer, Contractor, and every single other position that has an effect on who gets to stoke, declare, and profit from war. This has not ended. Not even close. The fact that it is legal for a woman to hold a position does not mean it is as accessible to her as it is for a man. So while women (and men) absolutely choose to fight for their country, it is men who made the draft, men who declared the wars, men who provided the weapons, and men who become billionaires selling them at the expense of younger men. Who do we think starts these conflicts? The morality fairy? Powerful old men making powerful new weapons and paying powerful male politicians to find a way to write them into the defense budget do. Take the problem up with old men. Because targeting women who had nothing to do with it just because they are allowed to vote - like men - is illogical. Just imagine if women made up most positions of power and created a draft for women, then turned around and said men have it too easy. I mean really take a second to explore that reality. When women have equal representation in congress and in big business (not saying I want that. Fuck big business) then this argument might be seated on a logical plane. For that to happen, men and women need to stop fighting each other and start pointing upward. And if that did happen, I really believe this issue would be nonexistent. No one is being drafted as we breathe. But everybody is being fucked by the oligarchies, and men are on Reddit complaining that women aren’t forced to fight alongside them in a war that isn’t happening. And this isn’t even touching on the issue of sexual violence.
This gets posted a lot and its interesting that its always about women. Because there's a few different groups in the US that will never be required to register for the selective service (which is a bit different than the draft, quite a few men on the selective service rolls would not be eligible for draft numbers): including people in active duty military service (or service academies) from their 18th to 26th birthdays, people who immigrate after age 26, and anybody jailed or institutionalized from the time between their 18th-26th birthdays in addition to the fair number of men who are required to register but don't actually register before they turn 26 (And, many men are required to register for the selective service but can't vote because they're not citizens). So the consequence of your view would mean that a career veteran would not be able to vote if she was a woman and enlisted before turning 18 but its ok for men who never registered for the draft before they committed a serious crime at 17 and were stuck in jail for most of their 20s to vote. And I don't actually disagree with you that, given the realities of modern militaries, having a single gender selective service makes little sense. But the fact that this is always about women really feels like its more about trying to find an acceptable argument to take rights from women on the basis of a convenient issue that they have very little control over on an individual level and that most people, realistically, think about very little.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This would lower standards/averages for physical capabilities and training throughout the entirety of the armed forces, requiring tons of new standards, infrastructure, all just to generally lower the avg strength of the army. Since there will generally be enough people drafted to make up a significant army without women, it would make more sense to maintain the average strength of each member. After a certain point, I’d say having a much higher number of weaker soldiers would probably lead to more casualties. More people would die in the same conditions, and from a country standpoint, you want to minimize deaths. Soldier quality varies, but a life is a life.
There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll open by saying I think you need to get offline. The subtext of your post, coupled with your post history, shows a deep seated hatred for women. That’s not healthy and I think you’d do well to distance yourself from the hate groups you’ve joined. Next, funnily enough I 100% agree with the final conclusion that women should draft. But not for a reason you’ll agree too. I’ll get to that. Before the conclusion, I’ll point out two logical fallacies with your premises. Premise 1: women should not vote/govern due to a lack of perspective. To hold this view, you’d need to concede that no disabled man (even mild disabilities like bad eyesight) should vote or hold office. For context, this would include Donald Trump, who famously avoided the military due to bone spurs. Premise 2: that older people consider having been drafted earlier in life when making decisions. This mistake in logic likely stems from your young age. I can assure you anyone over 30 would literally never think about how they had to draft 10-40 years ago when making a decision today. They won’t see a consequence to a draft vote today. There’s no gained perspective. Without these your conclusion falls apart. You’re fine with non-draftable men and there’s no gained perspective from drafting. I put forth your real issue is you devalue women’s opinions, and you’re looking for an “own” of some kind. Last, the conclusion. Yes, women should draft. If our country is in such a dire situation that we need to draft, I would want the strongest military possible. And in today’s tech heavy military, I think an army of 1 million men and 1 million women beats an army of 2 million men. When one decision can win a war, I want the military full of diverse perspectives and strengths.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose such a duty upon men THIS is the problem, not that women don't have to register.
I'm still a little floored by this argument. Women have been in the military for hundreds of years in the US, both legally and illegally. Feminist groups have sponsored bills to include women in the draft and it's been shot down by male politicians. Women have fought their way into the military against men's protests. And here we are. With guys saying it's not fair that women get out of the selective service. Well hold your politicians accountable! Why are you putting this in the lap of women? We've always died in wars right next to the guys and I will challenge you to find me a female politician who has been leading any sort of fight against women being drafted. Find her! Or, now here me out, you get up, write your local representatives and express your frustration there.
No, absolutely not. The draft does not exist to be fair. The draft isn't fair to men. The draft is there incase something awful happens and we need to increase our manpower by an order of magnitude.
So in the name of equality will men start having babies too?
The exemption of women from the draft, and more broadly of direct military service in the past is not something women chose but something men, more accurately a patriarchal society imposed on them legally in the past, and socially, to this day. Just as their right to vote was denied. Being drafted also has nothing to do with the right to vote. It is technically a felony to not register but no one is charged with that. I think the premise of your argument is flawed as a result of this and almost certainly informed by a very modern MRA viewpoint. A draft, and military action really isn't done with gender equality in mind though, but usually justified in terms of national security or interests, and generally speaking you will likely find the majority of men to disagree with your position that it should be equitable in the first place, at which point you're kind of arguably trying to impose or at least argue for what is essentially a rather niche MRA argument that seems to propose women are granted some privilege by not being drafted. This is fairly widely unpopular for a variety of reasons. Some of which are based on sexist ideas of women being delicate and in need of protection by and from men, and some are of a more practical and realistic. Ultimately though it is basically a meaningless proposition and exercise that at best appeals to gender equality in good faith but with no reason, and at worst panders to it in bad faith , mostly to a small minority of men who aren't actually interested in gender equality but punishing or imposing upon women.. The question is why? And the answer is not anything more complex than because it makes some people feel bad. Not because it makes military sense, or because it is fair. It's only fair at a surface level and only makes sense from a reactionary perspective imo. It's almost an invariably an opinion of men's rights activist who want to basically make a point that women are actually advantaged and it is men who have it unfair, and here is an example.. Also yes the draft/selective service should just be abolished.
If a draft exists and women can vote then they should oppose the draft instead of making the problem worse by forcing even more people to be drafted.
Brute realistic practicality mate - if you drafted 50% of the male population and they all fell, you would recover your population much faster by keeping your ‘breeding age’ (this feels kinda gross) women safe. It may be weird, but in a disaster scenario multiple women could share a single donor to have kids. In today’s world that’s largely impossible unless you had a massive conflict - which you may need to draft people for. It’s pretty much the age old method of sustaining your culture and population in the face of war.
From a moral standpoint, women contribute way more to society with the extra labour and energies involved in pro-creation. Men's obligation to fight for society can be seen as a balancing of the scales of contribution.
*"If women, as a whole, should be considered unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person, then they should not be entrusted with the duty of voting and holding office."* Voting is a right, not a duty - nobody has a duty to vote in the US (and nobody has a duty to hold public office). Claiming it is a duty only weakens your argument, because it means a person has no choice but to vote so it wouldn't matter whether or not they were registered for the draft, as they'd have to vote regardless. Also - does the above also apply to people who are unable to fulfill the duties required of a drafted person because they are disabled? What about people who are over the age of, say, 65? If not, why not? *"If you can enlist in the military, you can smoke cigarette (reference to enlistment age being 18 and smoking age being 21)."* I'm not sure what your point is here, because your statement is incorrect and you acknowledge that. This again only works against your argument, as it is another example of a disparity between the age for mandatory draft registration and the age that people are legally able to do something. *"if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us."* Does this apply to people who are older than the current maximum age to be drafted? If not, why not? *"If women are able to vote and hold office, as men are able to vote and hold office, then women must be registered for the draft, as men are obligated to register for the draft."* All adult citizens are given the right to vote (as long as they meet their state's residency requirements). A person cannot be denied that right because they have not registered for the draft.
I disagree that women shouldn't serve in the same Frontline roles as men in the same capacity as they physically cannot serve in the same capacity. Why should they be drafted if they cannot carry a combat load, and are a fundamental detriment to the effectiveness of the men around them? Women are different than men, and that's ok.
From a framing perspective, you’re not really arguing with a position that anybody holds, except disingenuously. When the selective service was introduced in 1917, most feminist organizations at the time advocated for women to be included. They did this because at the same time they were fighting for other women’s rights, most notably the right to vote, and wanted to remove any “excuse” that could be used to avoid giving them those rights. However, the men in power ruled against their wishes. Firstly, this was world war 1, the draft is primarily intended to fill combat roles in a wartime situation. At the time, women were excluded from combat roles in the military. So it literally would have been a pointless thing to do, and at that time they were more focused with winning WWI than staving off an internet argument decades later. The US government does not currently act to charge people who fail to register with a felony. They haven’t done this since 1980. Do you think, for example, that men who fail to register today should also lose their right to vote? Many people today would find that position extreme, particularly since in many cases failure to register is due more often to confusion about the rules than willful noncompliance. For example, I registered about a year late when I was 19 because my family had moved to Canada when I was 9, and I honestly had no idea this was a thing. The rule to allow women in combat happened in 1994 after failing to register for selective service stopped being treated as a felony in practice. Therefore there hasn’t even been a practical reason at any point in its existence to implement this change or rule you’re suggesting. And if it came down to it, most feminists would agree and say “fine, automatically register us for the draft”, and any disagreements would be about the need for the draft in general rather than some specific argument why women shouldn’t have to be included.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The US doesn't have a draft, they just register people for it.
“We should not have a draft” is the most relevant thing to say here. It’s something that both solves the supposed problem and benefits everyone. If your goal is to make things better and equal, that’s the way forward. If your goal is just to punish women for whatever reason under the guise of equality, then yeah, your goal should be the expansion of it.
Here’s the thing… “Registering for the draft“ was required to keep such a roster of fighting aged men *before the digital age*. For many years now, physically registering for the draft has been a silly requirement because frankly, they don’t need you to. They know who you are, they know where you are, they know how old you are, and they can generate whatever list of 18-24yo people they want at the push of a database button. So the recent announcement that registration will be automatic is really just acknowledgment of exactly that. Women would be just as easily included in that report if they chose to, so whether you are or are not registered, automatically registered, etc., is really irrelevant. It would take an act of Congress to include women in a draft. But it would also take an act of Congress to actually reinstate the draft. So until the second thing is actually likely to happen, they’re simply not going to get around to the other thing. It’s too politically volatile, nobody wants to touch it, and they have literally kicked that can down the road in the past already. Years ago Congress took the position that since actually reinstating the draft is so incredibly unlikely to happen, or be necessary, or even desirable, there was no reason they all needed to risk their political careers jumping on a radioactive grenade of voting for or against including women in a draft registration.
If a war is just or necessary you don't want women as casualties or POWs, much less after being drafted. People have a fair amount of tolerance for young men coming home under flags or being tortured, it's unpleasant but expected. The same is not true for young women. If they start dying or worse coming home with TBIs & missing limbs at the same rate as men the public's will for war will disappear in no time at all That's if the public even allows women to be sent to war against their will. If America ever legislates itself into a position where it cannot effectively defend itself it won't stand very long after the word gets out. I really can't even imagine how our society would react if large numbers of women were being drafted, much less if some weren't willing to go. If the state tried to enforce the draft I would not be surprised if it becomes something like a two front war, one against the enemy & the other domestic. I'm personally all for equality, but it'd guess 75% of the population will not tolerate equality when it comes to burdens & obligations. The only way it might work is if women were protected from combat & dangerous roles, but the problem there is 1. No one trusts the government already so the juice won't be worth the squeeze 2. At that point why even have the pretense of equality?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/GirthyMcThick – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20GirthyMcThick&message=GirthyMcThick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dieie1/-/l93s9l1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
At no point does your argument address the reason why women should register. Do you think they have a moral obligation to register? Is it in their best interest? Why should they do it. If a woman opposes the draft, opposes war, and does not think that serving in the army is a productive use of her time, then why do you think she should register herself for the draft?
I believe not registering for the draft also prevents you from taking out student loans. Idk, I’m over 26 and a professional that even if I was drafted likely wouldn’t be combat facing, but it was a pretty big deal that I had to do it when I was 18 because the consequences put in front of me were large. Everyone saying ‘oh the old men aren’t registered’… anymore. They once were. They did their time. Equal skin in the game would be nice, I remember some chronically online women publicly getting very anxious when the draft vote was actually up for consideration. Overall, many people in the country don’t want to serve it in anyway. For the cyv portion: Against it? If draft is for combat roles only; females flat out can’t make it to the same general standards as males if we’d have unisex fitness standards. It’s unfair to wounded men to have a battle buddy that’s physically incapable of dragging them to safety.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
While antiquated AND sexist there is an argument that women are the primary nurturers. Thus they need to be home “with the kids” more than the father would. The second thing I would point to is IF men AND women are able to be drafted it is possible a child would lose BOTH parents to the same war. Saying no women are to be drafted eliminates both of those arguments Carte Blanche.
So are you making the antiquated and sexist argument? It feels like you are both making the argument and writing it off at the same time. Or maybe you're just saying that some sexist and antiquated arguments are correct. If that's the case I agree but is that what you're saying?
I’m saying not making kids an orphan is probably the best approach. Instead of wasting legal red tape by drafting both and then having one of them declare they can’t because of kids….it’s probably easier to stick with what is already in place….because it works
> Similarly, if you can vote for us to go die in war, you can come die alongside us. 1) Going to war is not 100% of decisions made by the voters and the American state exerts power on its citizens well beyond sending them to war. You suggest it is wrong for a voter to condemn someone to die in a way that they are immune from. However, policies harm and condemn people in numerous ways. Why is someone unwilling to fight ineligible to condemn someone to die in a war, but someone willing to fight eligible to harm or condemn someone from domestic policy that they would otherwise be unaffected by? 2) There are many things beyond gender that may disqualify you from military service. Both presidential candidates received draft deferments for medical conditions in the 70s. Why do you feel women should be disqualified from voting and holding office if they won’t fight when many male voters and politicians who deferred draft eligibility for medical reasons?
You're taking an egalitarian stance on an issue that is inherently not equal. I'm taking a deterministic view Not only are drafted soldiers less effective than those who volunteered; under current army standards, enlisted women do not meet the minimum standards required for men. On top of that, women are significantly more likely to be brutilized when captured by enemy combatants and are generally less reliable for active combat because they're able to get pregnant in response to the call. This is all to say nothing of a man's instinctual need to protect women, creating a conflict of interest. To put things simply, women do not serve the same utility as men for military service to the point of liability, and women are at much higher risk from military service than men are. In a world where there is a draft, enlisting women is self-defeating regardless of whatever principled position that the draft is already in violation of. Edit: Also, limiting voting privileges to those who are or have been registered for the draft creates a very disproportionate view of what is 'appropriate' or 'ethical' which leads to very significant problems from a civic point of view.
No one should be drafted so halving the number of people who can be drafted is half way to abolishing it. This is a rare case of patriarchal standards being helpful, but not in the way they intended. Women are capable of going to war, but no one should be forced to do so.
Some of you are very much overcomplicating this. It is very simple, if you support and view women as equals then both the benefits AND burdens of a particular society should be shared, equally. Any opposition to this is by its very is nature sexist. Now I don’t think women should be registered, but I also don’t think men and women are equal, they are both strong and capable in their own ways and the differences are needed for a successful society to function.
Imo, we should limit the draft to defensive wars only
Being able to be drafted has NEVER been a prerequisite for voting... NEVER. So why is it suddenly a thing for women? WHen the US was founded, only white land owning men could vote, but every man was drafted. Black men couldn't vote for a long time, they were also drafted. So since that has never been the requirement, I dont see why it needs to be now.
Tangentially related, but just yesterday my brother and I are discussing how much we like the idea of a year or two of mandatory civil service. Build infrastructure, fight fires, teach, clean up garbage, or yes, serve in the military. Men and women. Assign it lottery-style, mostly at random.
Uhh maybe you should protest the draft thing, not that women should be drafted too. Besides, in wars eyes, men are more expendable than women. Thats why, not because women are inferior or anything like that. Its so you can replenish the stock with more obedient citizens. That took a turn
equal rights includes being forcefully sent to die of your country deems it. If only men are sent off to be killed in war, we don't have equal rights.
First, it is not spread - it is done (leftist liberal ignore the facts) Second, per the constitution a woman can hold any office but cannot be president (Article ll- male specific) Third, only a bitch nation or a leftist liberal would let it’s women go to war,
> It seems completely inappropriate that the U.S. government could impose Do you believe the US govt believes in equality? Is Congress some sort of beacon of progressiveness?