First of all, you're projecting pretty hard with your depictions of the people you think are agreeing with this, and secondly, if you don't think that there are people and members of the political process in Canada who want to do far worse things to the military than what you think people are trying to do with the U.S. military, you're absolutely dreaming. Know what you think? You think this is going to be a nightmare. Me? I'm looking at other ways it's been pulled off and have seen, well, it actually hasn't been that big of a fucking deal. Not much has actually changed, even if the rules have. The tides go in and out, the earth still spins on its axis and rotates in its orbit. And believe you me, if Canada - "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term" - can pull it off, then you're all in pretty bad shape if you can't.
I don’t see any meaningful upside, but I do see a lot of potential downside. And in a situation where lives are placed on the line playing with PC correctness is bullshit. Front line military = best humans for the job, this = big, strong, agressive men 17-42 years old. If your country is in deep shit and you are outnumbered or most of the 17-42 year old men are all dead then open up the demographics and give everyone a gun. And the all dead point is the vital one here, as long as the female population is intact a society can bounce back in a generation or two, you kill all the 17-42 year old women in a country and that nation will be a wasteland. Sorry girls, your lives are to important to throw away.
Alright then, show me a country where women were allowed to be in combat, where the infantry battalions suddenly filled up with women and a significant chunk of the child-bearing potential of that society was put at risk. You can't, because it hasn't fucking happened. The rule against women in combat is the equivalent of a "baby on board" sign in the back of the minivan in front of you. As if I was under the impression that rear-ending that minivan were entirely acceptable... but, oh, what's that you say, there's a baby on board? Fuck, better be careful then. And you're all debating over hypotheticals that might come true if that sticker were to come off, plugging your ears and shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when I'm pointing out that, hey, there are other cars driving down the road, without any dents in the rear bumper, without a sticker in the god damned window. You know why? Because, put simply, there just aren't many women who are even interested in signing up for combat jobs, fewer still who can actually make it past training, and fewer still who, after all of the above, are put into offensive by their commanders on the ground. The fact is, combat is best suited to men, so much so that the rule is superfluous.
Exactly motherfucker. Exactly. So let’s not fuck around and spend many millions of dollars across the western world to placate a few hardcore feminists so 1/5,000 people who “might” be able to cut it get a crack at something they aren’t required for in the first place. It might not be fair, but thats life.
So what happened to that thing about the entire population at risk of being wiped out by letting women into combat? It was your idea, let's hear you defend it.
That's not what I said dickhead. My point was simple, choose your soldiers from the most capable pool, make sure societies best interests are served. Putting women in harms way be it 10 or 10,000 when there are plenty of guys who can soak up the bullets doesn't make sense.
I think, theoretically, women in combat is a worthwhile venture. If a person is physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of the task at hand; they should have the opportunity no matter what kind of private parts they have. Theoretically. In reality, we live in a country that uses the effects of war to push political ideologies. There will be anti-war groups who use the image of a dead female soldier for their own agenda. There will be soldiers in combat who think of women in certain way and that may affect their ability to do their jobs. We are also fighting against groups that think of women in certain ways and may treat female POWs a certain way based on their belief system. While I believe women have the ability to fight on the front lines, there will need to be a change in cultural perceptions before it could be something that will be useful for all parties involved.
Have you... read this thread? 139 American women have died in Iraq (as of last year) and all that shows for it is that a) nobody really noticed, and b) people think bad things are going to happen if female soldiers start dying. And POWs... well, again, if people cared that much, you'd be able to name more female POWs than just Jessica Lynch. Nobody's going to be choosing female soldiers anyways, and in modern war, the only way to be truly free of risk is to simply not be in theatre. I alluded to it briefly in my first post in the thread, but I do know people who have had rockets fall perilously close to them while in line for the Tim Horton's in Kandahar Air Field. And those American female soldiers who died; they weren't involved in direct fighting, but they were still clearly at risk. What level of "in harm's way" is acceptable, then?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot the last few day trying to figure how sexist my mother brought me up to be. (she is old school) I think I’ve nutted out my main difficulty with the concept, the potential for conscription. I can’t even begin to imagine what would happen to 99% of 17 year old women today if forced to serve in a Vietnam styled conflict after a couple of weeks of basic training. Hell from what I see on the street 50% of the guys would be fucking useless. Some of the arguments on here have rightly stated that some women would be capable, I don’t disagree, but by far and away most wouldn’t and in a situation where a massive call up was required unless you think that all names should be in the draw regardless of gender not unlike other professions: teachers, doctors and lawyers etc then you are against women in front line combat, it’s got to be all or nothing, the military machine needs to be immune from civilian PC wank, it’s job is just to important. Also it can’t be ideal to have your best 25 man squad made up of the top 24 candidates plus number 1284 because of an equal opportunity law now can it?
I can only speak for myself, of course, but if we're ever in a situation where the draft does need to be reinstated, I would not be against it being for both men and women. It would just be a bit more complicated since there would be more things to take into consideration (i.e not leaving children without both of their parents if they were drafted etc). But, even if there was a draft, that still wouldn't mean that women would automatically be put into combat, regardless of whether or not they would qualify. They would just get put into other positions that would match their abilities and skills.
My SIL (the one married to BrotherB) served with him on two rotations in Iraq. All the things he did? She was pretty much right beside him. She pulled her own weight, she carried her shit, and she hung with the (much) big(ger) boys. Convoys, details, whatever, she did it. Women can do it, I believe, but... BrotherB is 6' tall, 210 lbs, and lugs his own shit around. BrotherA is 6'2", 230, and does...some kind of weird shit that I can't describe. And still carries his own shit around. The Husband is 6'2", 235, and can carry his own load. As long as none of the men in my life are picking up slack for a female because she can't handle her own shit, I don't give two shits. If a female can't handler her load (literal or figurative) and needs a scaled/lighter load, she shouldn't be doing the job. All of that said, I do have concern that the presence of a female would be a distraction. There's plenty of shenanigans already, through a female into a male dominated environment, she's got something to prove, they've got dicks to measure...it could (probably will) go badly.
I just expect all these ladies to fill out their selective service card now. I don't really understand why they don't have to now based on everyones (meaning this whole media storm, not y'all) opinion of women in combat. Women are eligible to serve in the military and apparently people feel fairness can only be achieved by letting them into combat. If you're going to add political correctness and fairness to the one part of society where they have no bearing, then I want a truly level field. Even though a draft is most likely (hopefully, please god don't send me to the desert to get shot at) never going to happen, I am not happy that I had to sign up to potentially be conscripted, but a whole segment of our population doesn't. I've been likening it to cyclists that want to be treated like a car, but then roll through stop signs, you shouldn't get to pick and choose what parts of "fair" suit you.
I always assumed this would follow (with exceptions for parents of young children, etc), as soon as they finally decide whether to keep selective service or not (It has been abolished in many countries, and even in the US once already). As far as I am aware, the US professional military is quite large. I therefore assume if the world gets into some nasty conflict that will make drafting necessary, we all better be stepping up to defend our country, otherwise we might not have a country to live in. Or, given how the rest of the world treats its women, a country where death would seem preferable to being a woman. My profession can already be drafted, and I have no problems with that. It's called "Health Care Personnel Delivery System". The HCPDS plans include women and men age 20–54 in 57 job categories. I really hope that never ends up happening, that the US military can protect us civilians, and that it never runs out of military doctors. But if it does, my fine ass can get drafted alongside my male colleagues.
One of the biggest issues I'm having with this is that it's being championed by people who either are not in the military or who have never even served. Civilians can't understand exactly how life in the military is and how it actually operates, yet are they first ones that want to change things to make themselves feel like they are on the moral high ground. I'm not a doctor, so I wouldn't start telling the medical community about changes they need to make in the field and how they aren't doing things the right way. Why is this any different? If you have active duty soldiers in the field, both men and women, saying that this is a bad idea, then why try to force it?
I think that the reason is that the military has ALWAYS been resistant to change, and that improvements have always come from either junior officers or from without. For example, we never would have integrated black troops if it weren't for the President doing it. Most general officers were against it, and if they'd had their way, we'd probably still have segregated battalions (Then again, you'll notice that the black guys in a battalion tend to stick together anyway. Self-segregation at its finest). It's interesting to see that the military's traditional resistance to change is now biting them in the ass when change is actually a bad idea. We've been overriding the military's conservatism for so long that now, when they're bringing up real issues and saying "This is a BAD idea," people are just dismissing their concerns as "Oh, that's just those ornery old generals bitching. Tell 'em to shut up so we can do our own thing." Edit: As for the Ethiopian grandma, she doesn't have to sprint or fight with said load on. She won't have to pick up or drag someone else who is carrying the same load as her, either.
I don't think there should be any exceptions for women, even if they have young children. Unless I'm totally mistaken, I could be drafted with a young child why shouldn't a woman have to?
And if you read correctly you would notice how I said "parents" not mothers. I do think it would be detrimental to society to take away both parents of young children, or their only parent if it's a single parent situation. I am honestly not sure how it works now, I know throughout history married men were exempt from the draft, then they exempted married men with kids. Bottom line, doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman with a baby, there is plenty of others who can take up the slack so we're not screwing over the next generation of kids.