Women and the draft

[quantum_mechani]

This is something that's bugged me for a while. I'm not a fan of the draft in the first place, but if they are going to have it, it should at least be done sensibly. Exempting women from the draft is unfair to both women (who it is implied are not true equals since they cannot bear the full burdens of citizenship), and men (who are now statistically more likely to die, simply because of the sex they were born as).

If they want exempt people based on lacking the required muscle strength, fine. If they want to exempt pregnant women, fine. But that 50% of the population should be just flat out immune to the draft is in my opinion a very indefensible opinion.

I am curious, in nations besides the US, with similar draft systems, what are their laws on the subject?

[monolith94]

I'd prefer that we do away with the draft wholely.

[Zevico]

Israel has the draft for both men and women, though women's service is shorter. Religious women also get an opt-out called National Service, which is basically the same time period spent in community work (teaching or whatever I guess).

[KrazyHorse]

If they want exempt people based on lacking the required muscle strength, fine.

It's not just existing muscle strength. Most men can reasonably gain the strength they need to pack 80 lbs of gear for an extended run in a couple of months. Most women can't. Male reaction times are somewhat shorter, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are better marksmen with equivalent training (given slightly better spatial awareness and aforementioned reaction time). Male cardiovascular fitness is significantly better than femal cardiovascular fitness.

Overall, I doubt the average woman would be considered even a mediocre front-line soldier compared to similarly-trained men.

I don't doubt that most armies would similarly reject a 5'4 male with a testosterone deficiency and little hope of getting under 22% body fat...

[Dis]

women are not allowed in combat units, so it seems silly to draft them.

and women tend to fight like girls.

Never forget: Jessica Lynch. remember her?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

[Dis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If they want exempt people based on lacking the required muscle strength, fine.

It's not just existing muscle strength. Most men can reasonably gain the strength they need to pack 80 lbs of gear for an extended run in a couple of months. Most women can't. Male reaction times are somewhat shorter, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are better marksmen with equivalent training (given slightly better spatial awareness and aforementioned reaction time). Male cardiovascular fitness is significantly better than femal cardiovascular fitness.

Overall, I doubt the average woman would be considered even a mediocre front-line soldier compared to similarly-trained men.

I don't doubt that most armies would similarly reject a 5'4 male with a testosterone deficiency and little hope of getting under 22% body fat...

I have to agree. And I have my doubts that women are natural born fighters. Sure they can get into some pretty impressive fights over men and stuff. But that's with someone they have an obvious hatred for. But to shoot at someone you don't know is tough to do.

[Lancer]

The problem is grenades. If a woman throws a grenade it often won't go far enough to not kill her in the explosion.

Grenades are sexist.

[Dis]

Lancer sighting. When have you been back?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lancer
The problem is grenades. If a woman throws a grenade it often won't go far enough to not kill her in the explosion.

Grenades are sexist.

that's why they have grenade launchers.

[Lancer]

I'm still here on Bohol. Dis, if you could see the girls sitting around this internet cafe... The one just across the way is truly fine. What a rack. Pretty face. Long legs.

It's a damn good thing I gave up looking.

[Dis]

send her over my way.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If they want exempt people based on lacking the required muscle strength, fine.

It's not just existing muscle strength. Most men can reasonably gain the strength they need to pack 80 lbs of gear for an extended run in a couple of months. Most women can't. Male reaction times are somewhat shorter, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are better marksmen with equivalent training (given slightly better spatial awareness and aforementioned reaction time). Male cardiovascular fitness is significantly better than femal cardiovascular fitness.

Overall, I doubt the average woman would be considered even a mediocre front-line soldier compared to similarly-trained men.

I don't doubt that most armies would similarly reject a 5'4 male with a testosterone deficiency and little hope of getting under 22% body fat...

The thing is, there is whole range of people of both sexes that may be better or worse suited for combat based on a huge number of factors. It is really very straightforward, they set specific standard of what a soldier needs to be able to do, those that can can be drafted, those that can't cannot.

[Lancer]

I can give her your email address...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If they want exempt people based on lacking the required muscle strength, fine.

It's not just existing muscle strength. Most men can reasonably gain the strength they need to pack 80 lbs of gear for an extended run in a couple of months. Most women can't. Male reaction times are somewhat shorter, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are better marksmen with equivalent training (given slightly better spatial awareness and aforementioned reaction time). Male cardiovascular fitness is significantly better than femal cardiovascular fitness.

Overall, I doubt the average woman would be considered even a mediocre front-line soldier compared to similarly-trained men.

I don't doubt that most armies would similarly reject a 5'4 male with a testosterone deficiency and little hope of getting under 22% body fat...

Actually, women consistently prove to be better marksmen than men, given equivalent training.

Women also have a greater ability to endure pain.

I don't really care about the larger question; I'm just throwing that out there.

[KrazyHorse]

And what I'm saying is that male and female norms are so far away from each other that only outliers (superior females) would be considered adequate recruits when based on objective standards.

The waste of time spent determining that these 9 women don't gain strength quickly enough while this one does is far worse than the waste of time spent determining that this one man doesn't gain strength quickly enough while these nine do.

Until there's a cheap and quick way to determine that ahead of time (before you spend 9 times as much to gain each female soldier as you do to gain each male soldier) it's better, especially in the context of a national emergency, to reject out of hand all women (or at least all who do not already display extraordinary capabilities).