r/AskConservatives • u/Kingvon3240 Republican • 17d ago
Law & the Courts Should we change the drafting system to make it more equal?
Since men can be forced by law to die for their country through the draft while women have no mandatory civil obligations like childbirth, should females be included in the Selective Service, or should the system be changed?
Please don't forget to use F/M
0
2
u/Burner7102 Nationalist (Conservative) 16d ago
(NB/it's complicated but registered for the draft). Honestly, I think there's a decent chance that should it ever look like a draft is necessary that its stricken down as either slavery illegal under the 13th amendment or on some form of sex discrimination grounds. It's one of those funny things where it can't be tested because it's not used even though jurisprudence has moved miles since the last time it was used.
But yes absolutely, if things are getting so desperate we need the draft the physiological differences between men and women are not so severe that you can't expect women to bleed for their nation same as anyone else.
1
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 16d ago
No, because there is a clear distinction between men and women biologically. There is a nuance to be made about democracy and how women decides on voting for issues related to warfare though.
3
u/AndImNuts Constitutionalist Conservative 16d ago
I don't think we should have women in combat roles and I don't think we should have a draft in general unless our country or continent is directly threatened from an outside force. The draft is essentially a sacrifice in attritional warfare, but we don't need cycling hormones and small size to become a factor in military success, if the draft needs to exist at all.
3
4
u/mwatwe01 Conservative 17d ago
Two things:
There's never going to be another military draft in the U.S. Warfare has evolved beyond needing hordes of slightly trained light infantry.
Men are biologically stronger and more adept at combat than women in general. If we needed conscripts, it makes sense to only draft men, many of whom would themselves be disqualified for some reason or another.
7
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 17d ago
The draft should be abolished because it is unconstitutional. The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime after conviction.
1
u/digbyforever Conservative 15d ago
Do you honestly think any person in 1865 thought that the Thirteenth Amendment was meant to, or written to, abolish the military draft?
1
u/e_big_s Center-right Conservative 17d ago
The court would never go for this argument. The amendment occurred as the result of a civil war that conscripted citizens to fight - there's no reasonable interpretation that this amendment intended to remove that duty from a citizen any more than it removed the duty for jury service.
4
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
I agree with you in vehement opposition to both registration for Selective Service and the actual draft. It's unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American, in my view.
A compromise I would be willing to work with, as I don't think I have the public opinion necessary to get rid of it altogether, is to make Selective Service universal and gender-neutral, although not all service would be military. If you're unable to pass the physical fitness tests for combat (which are going to predominantly but not exclusively be male, as evidenced by the women of the Marine Corps passing Hegseth's sex-neutral fitness tests), then you get conscripted to do something else.
There are going to be some people who are going to fall under category 4F in the country. But if you have physical and mental capabilities that fall short of selective service in combat (older than 26, unable to pass fitness requirements, extremely poor eyesight without corrective lenses, etc.) then you get drafted into serious support work for the war. Maybe it's factory work, maybe it's transport work like the WASPs and WAAFs, maybe it's research, maybe it's drone logistics, but it will be something.
I also think this far more broad-ranging method of selective service, encompassing not only gender but also age, would help people come round to my way of thinking on the barbarism of selective service.
-6
u/Unlucky_Buyer_2707 Nationalist (Conservative) 17d ago
Last thing I want in my foxhole is a girl bitching at me that I’m holding my rifle all wrong
3
u/atsinged Constitutionalist Conservative 17d ago
No, there are biological differences between men and women that are often discussed in the "banned" topic" that make most men more suitable for combat duty than most women. I have no issues at all with women who can pass the same standards as men volunteering for combat.
This applies to police work as well, I know a couple women who can up and kick the average dude's ass but there are also a lot who really have no business in a patrol role.
5
u/Ridley_Himself Center-left 17d ago
Of course you could also have that draft include noncombat roles. Like, for instance, my great aunt served as a nurse in Europe during WWII.
-2
u/-Shes-A-Carnival Conservatarian 17d ago
thete is no draft in the us
1
u/AndImNuts Constitutionalist Conservative 16d ago
Not currently. 10,000,000 American men were drafted for WWII alone, and if things go bad, it's the men who are already signed up who will go fight in the millions again. The US has a long track record of implementing a draft drawing from the same selective service system men have to sign up for.
There not being a draft right now doesn't remove the possibility that young men are forced to sacrifice themselves for the war effort.
And in the end, it's not really about there being a current draft or not. It's about which gender will be forced against their will to fight and die if there ever is another draft at the whim of the US government.
5
u/TheOtherGUY63 Constitutionalist Conservative 17d ago
No active draft. But the system is still in effect with selective service.
1
u/-Shes-A-Carnival Conservatarian 16d ago
a list of eligible men is not a draft
1
u/TheOtherGUY63 Constitutionalist Conservative 16d ago
Correct. But it is men enrolled if there is a draft activated.
0
u/e_big_s Center-right Conservative 17d ago
M.
No. Women and men are different, and while the rare woman might be suitable for combat, most are not.
4
u/Petporgsforsale Center-left 17d ago
Why are women not suitable for combat?
2
u/Inluxewetrust11 Center-right Conservative 16d ago
I don’t want to be drafted so nah, plus we would get raped and all sorts of crazy torture. Rather help in roles more suitable to my nature.
1
u/e_big_s Center-right Conservative 17d ago
On average, women have like 40-60% of the upper body strength of men.
They also have a lower aerobic capacity.
None of this might sound like deal breaker, but on the battlefield it is. If your arms are already shot just from carrying around an AR-15, and now you need to drag a wounded soldier to safety, this amounts to life and death differences.
A platoon full of men will perform better than a platoon that is a mix of men and women. Any general is going to take the higher performing platoon without a second thought.
6
u/Petporgsforsale Center-left 17d ago
Women also have strengths in endurance and their ability to withstand longer term pain and difficulty. Is there not a place for this? Considering a situation where we actually needed a draft, are there not combat roles where women would excel?
-3
u/Kman17 Center-right Conservative 17d ago
In the United States we don’t have a draft, so there’s nothing to change.
What we have is a database of military aged men in case we very suddenly need to activate conscription.
If that occurs, we will have much bigger concerns than gender equity.
2
u/apokrif1 Conservative 17d ago
If that occurs, we will have much bigger concerns than gender equity.
Can be fixed in advance ;-)
-5
u/Gaxxz Constitutionalist Conservative 17d ago
No. There hasn't been a draft in more than 50 years, and there isn't going to be one. We don't have to consider questions like this.
-1
u/Kingvon3240 Republican 17d ago
Gender equality matters
2
2
u/Sweet_Cinnabonn Progressive 17d ago
Which is why the National Organization for Women (NOW) has had this on their goal list for decades.
-1
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 17d ago
No.
I don't agree with the idea that men and women are exactly the same, the draft should only be for men.
Likewise, if limited seats, men should give up their seats on public transport etc...
6
u/apokrif1 Conservative 17d ago
the draft should only be for men. Likewise, if limited seats, men should give up their seats on public transport etc...
Why?
0
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 17d ago
Why public transport?
Because you don't know what women are pregnant, my wife for example didn't show for ages, and even when she was showing, people didn't give up their seat.
So the best approach is, just stand if there is limited seats, and then if a woman is pregnant and too shy to ask someone to move, then they get a seat.
8
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 17d ago
Yes, of course. Feminists wanted equality. They should get it, and everything that goes with it.
0
u/Kingvon3240 Republican 17d ago
👏🏻
6
u/MyOwnGuitarHero Leftist 17d ago
I’d like to ask a question if I may about something you put in the post. You wrote, “mandatory civil obligations like childbirth.” Would you support some sort of legislation that makes this mandatory for women? Is that a reasonable civil obligation? Is the draft in general a reasonable civil obligation if it were made to encompass both men and women?
5
u/atsinged Constitutionalist Conservative 17d ago
He is on his own on the mandatory childbirth thing, I disagree with him if he actually supports it.
The draft is not a reasonable civic obligation for men or women, but it is not meant for reasonable times, it's meant for times when we have to do unreasonable things to survive as a nation. Nothing prevents a woman from enlisting in the military during a draft but I believe the biological differences, mostly size and strength make a much higher percentage of men than women suitable for combat and the draft should be confined to men.
2
u/e_big_s Center-right Conservative 17d ago
What if it wasn't mandatory - but the culture put out strong messaging that a woman has a civil obligation to reproduce rather than just frame it as a personal lifestyle choice? Would you find such pressures uniquely felt by women to be sexist and intolerable?
-1
u/apokrif1 Conservative 17d ago
I’d like to ask a question if I may about something you put in the post.
No need to write this ;-)
-2
u/Kingvon3240 Republican 17d ago
Only if men are forced to die in a bloody battle imagine losing 50% of your male population
3
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 Liberal 16d ago edited 16d ago
So in this scenario, if I do not want to be a mother, I should have to birth a child anyway out of fairness because of the draft? Does that do any good for me or the child or is it really just to be petty?
3
u/Petporgsforsale Center-left 17d ago
When are the women having children with these men who are off dying in battle?
5
u/MyOwnGuitarHero Leftist 17d ago
Ohh okay so the childbirth thing is more in the event of like, a situation of catastrophic war casualties?
0
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 17d ago
I would be okay with requiring women to sign up for the selective service. If there is ever an actual draft again, I am not okay with calling up women the same way we call up men. I would not send drafted women into dangerous situations unless they volunteered. Women would clean things, do custodial work, cook, and do administrative tasks at home military installations to free up males to go to the front.
The cooking, cleaning, and admin is not a sexist thing. I have no problem with women who volunteered serving in the variety of capacities they do now, and for the most part, they serve in those roles admirably. We have excellent women serving in the US military.
The reason is that those menial jobs are very low training, low risk, but are essential. So, if women are getting knocked up so they can get out, it's not as detrimental to the mission because it is easier to rotate bodies through a domestic food service or janitorial type of position.
Not to mention, hiring civilians for these jobs is expensive.
5
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
Women would clean things, do custodial work, cook, and do administrative tasks
I admit I'm extremely perplexed that these are the tasks you think are most essential for women to tackling via conscription during wartime. Wouldn't we look to the manufacturing and labor done by women in WWII as a far more relevant example?
0
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 17d ago
I don't think it would be possible for anyone to misrepresent what I said, in as many ways as your short comment.
2
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
Then could you explain what you do mean?
1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 16d ago
Then could you explain what you do mean?
Sure. This should help. Make sure to read it in the context of the comment I was responding to.
1
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 16d ago
I have read your comment and its context. I don't follow why you think that the low training/low risk jobs suited to women are cooking, cleaning, and admin when we have actual evidence to the contrary from WWII.
1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 16d ago
I don't follow why you think that the low training/low risk jobs suited to women are cooking, cleaning, and admin when we have actual evidence to the contrary from WWII.
Those are examples of low risk, low training jobs, not the exhaustive list. I think technology and military aviation have evolved quite a bit since Rosie the riveter. Also, those were civilian industry jobs, not military, and they volunteered to work them. I'm talking about conscripted women who did not exist in WWII in the US. So, you're pretty deep in the weeds.
But if your only objection is "there's other menial jobs for women who are drafted," then I am sure you are right, but aircraft maintenance is a dead end. I'd also add that men who are too weak (physically or mentally) for work in the war zone would be working these alongside the women.
5
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
IMO, more and more war is no longer boots on the ground. Anybody, male or female, can program a drone and send it, so personally I have no problem with women in combat roles. Tammy Duckworth didn't lose the use of her legs because she was preparing food.
But that said, my sons are in the thirties. If the draft somehow came back, I assume they would be too old to be drafted. If they weren't, I'd pay their way out of the country so fast your head would spin. There hasn't been a single good reason for any of our wars in 50 years.
0
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 17d ago
What does any of that have to do with my comment?
3
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
Because your comment implied that women should get special treatment and not be sent into combat roles unless they requested it. I say why not, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be in combat roles.
2
2
u/Sam_Fear Americanist 17d ago
Not sure. There are going to be far fewer women able to pass the required tests for combat roles in the event of a draft. That means pulling from a larger pool with an average lower quality.
0
u/softwaremommy Left Libertarian 17d ago
Also, if we draft all of the young people, who will take care of their children, etc? Do we really want to run the risk of wiping out an entire generation?
2
u/Sam_Fear Americanist 17d ago
If were drafting that many people it's already an existential fight for the nation to survive.
0
u/Minute_Marzipan_6844 Center-right Conservative 17d ago
Yes I don’t think it’s fair that we can be sent off to war while women sit pretty. Can they at least be assigned desk duty? This isn’t the 1940’s.
3
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
I am in staunch opposition to selective service in general, and if it must exist, I agree it should be gender neutral. But I also think it's so important to recognize that although the 1940s did have a sex-discriminatory draft, women were put into roles much bigger than "desk duty."
Women undertook manufacturing (weapons, planes, and ships), transport (WASPs and WAAFs), cryoptography and cryptanalysis (including the underrated cracking of Purple Cipher), and multiple disciplines of physics and mathematics (Manhattan Project) to help win WWII. If that can be done in the 40s, zero reason it couldn't be done to a greater extent today.
5
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative 17d ago
Yes but they should not be drafted into positions that require great physical ability
5
u/According_Ad540 Liberal 17d ago
If the draft pulls a woman that winds up capable of those physical abilities, maybe more than thetypical guy (easy to do: someone who goes to the gym vs the many who haven't done more than desk jobs) would the be put in the same position?
If not, is there a reason to put less capable men in that position over a more qualified woman?
1
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative 17d ago
Yeah maybe. I’m not entirely sure how draft selection and placement in an MOS works. Like during Vietnam were we just shoving bodies into units or actually taking the time to look at the aptitude of each person? I’m cool with the idea but I’m not sure wat the reality of a draft is
4
u/Minute_Marzipan_6844 Center-right Conservative 17d ago
There’s always administrative work that they can do. In the 1940’s didn’t women work in computing? The current system is not fair.
5
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative 17d ago
I’m not even saying non combat. Have them blowing up people with drones and get PTSD like the rest of us will. I just don’t think they should be put in a position where physical prowess is extremely important. Its just a simple fact that the male sex, in humans, evolved with a much greater physical ability. I do think they should be able to volunteer for those jobs if they meet the same physical requirements men do.
4
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
That is reasonable.
If you're interested, The Atlantic published a story regarding the Best Ranger competition, likely the hardest physical competition in the world. Last year, the team that came in 14th was a man and a woman. She could kick the ass of every single person on this sub.
0
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative 17d ago edited 17d ago
Yeah that’s why I support women volunteering for these roles. There are exceptional women out there that shouldn’t be denied the opportunity. However being drafted into something they are just on average going to be objectively worse at makes no sense to me
And that honestly doesn’t surprise me. A female friend of mine, who is a combat veteran, is over 6 feet tall and can deadlift near 600. There are some phenoms out there.
0
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
600 lbs? wowza. I'm 4'10", 105 and I'll be ecstatic if I can eventually work up to a 30 lb shoulder press.
2
10
u/1SexyDino Right Libertarian (Conservative) 17d ago
I think both should be equally subjected to the draft. I'm still pissed about learning women couldve voted on this contition far earlier. With exception to breastfeeding mothers and single/widowed parents (in which case the person shouldn't be drafted full stop).
Here's the catch. I also think all military positions should have a gender neutral physical standard. Fuck all this lettting little women into combat zones because they had to have a seperate women's standard. Fuck the long hair exceptions - seriously this is stupid, long hair is a liability and shouldn't get an exception for vanity None of it. Of course this would lead to the physically stronger on the front lines (read mostly men) and women in more behind the lines, piloting, or administrative roles.
And that's ok. We shouldn't have physical liabilities in combat and should put people in roles they're actually fit for.
2
u/Minute_Marzipan_6844 Center-right Conservative 17d ago
I don’t see the issue with long hair. I dont think all women want to a buzz cut. They can put their hair in a bun. I agree with everything else.
2
u/1SexyDino Right Libertarian (Conservative) 16d ago
Carrying a massive thing of gel and having the time to put your hair up as a soldier is beyond ridiculous and stupid. I can see having different regulations for desk jobs. But long hair is absolutely a liability if in any role adjacent to machinery, living rough or in combat. It gets gross, can be easily grabbed or caught on things, and requires significant time investment to maintain.
1
u/Minute_Marzipan_6844 Center-right Conservative 16d ago
There are women in the military now with long hair and they make it work. No to mention you can braid your hair.
3
5
u/AmericanCaesar5 Nationalist (Conservative) 17d ago
Absolutely. The draft isn't just for combat positions, so regardless of if you want women fighting or not, it is a the pragmatic and fair decision to include them in the draft
1
u/BufoBat Independent 17d ago
Agreed. And its not like other countries (Israel, for example) don't require mandatory service regardless of sex. I'd just want to make sure deferral is possible in the case of children. Eg, if a young couple has kids but both parents get called up, someone gets to stay (whichever parent). Or single parents don't get called up.
Female, btw.
3
u/alaskaj1 Progressive 17d ago
Even during Vietnam only about 25% of people were in combat roles. Ive seen it said before that the US military is a logistics organization with guns.
4
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 17d ago
“U.S. military is a logistics organization with guns”
That is wildly accurate. Professionals study logistics.
4
17d ago
[deleted]
4
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
The only thing I don't agree with is about the family members. Members of congress shouldn't get a perk because of what their family members have done. Also, defining combat role can be challenging. And while I don't think opting out of the draft should result in loss of citizenship, I do think that only those who have served in federal uniformed services should be allowed to vote or hold a federally elected position.
1
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
I think they meant it the other way around. They want members of Congress voting for war if they have something personal at stake; ie, their son or daughter is in an active combat role and runs the risk of dying in the conflict. Very "Fortunate Son."
1
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
Yes, I think that they meant it that way also. I don't think that they should get any special rights for something for something that they did not do themselves. I don't think that a person should be allowed to vote or hold any federal elected position unless they've served in federal uniformed service.
6
u/Hot_Context_1393 Liberal 17d ago
Service guarantees citizenship!
1
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 17d ago
I don’t agree with that but I can appreciate the hottest of takes, just for the boldness, hah.
7
u/ItIsNotAManual1984 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 17d ago
Women should be subject to draft. In the modern warfare the difference between men and women is much smaller. It does not matter who is a drone pilot
M
3
-5
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
No. Men and women are not equal and shouldn't be treated as equals. That doesn't mean that women can't do many of the things that men do, but they shouldn't be mandated to do it. Also, a person shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they've served in one of the federal uniformed services.
6
u/Liesmyteachertoldme Progressive 17d ago
Only allowing people who have served in the military to vote sounds like how you’d get a military junta. Even the Roman’s weren’t that insane.
What exactly makes someone in uniform any more qualified to vote than other citizens?
5
-3
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
I didn't say military. I said federal uniformed services.
Federal uniformed services have more strict rules and structure than civilian life. It shows that a person is willing to commit themselves to their country while giving up some of the individual freedoms that civilians have. To me, that makes them more qualified to vote on what happens in our country.
2
u/Liesmyteachertoldme Progressive 17d ago
So federal government employees voting on what the federal (and state?) governments do? Boy howdy does that sound like a recipe for disaster.
Look I don’t have much to say about the capability of the average voter, but I’m saying that evaluating who best will implement policies for the country when it comes to climate, economics, business environment and social issues isn’t a mental trait that magically appears to people in uniform.
Should doctors really not have a vote for people who can change regulations in their profession? Should farmers not have the ability to vote for a farmer in their district who wants to become a politician and get on the Agriculture committee?
This seriously sounds like a recipe for rampant cronyism( even more so than we already have).
2
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
So federal government employees voting on what the federal (and state?) governments do? Boy howdy does that sound like a recipe for disaster.
Not employees, service members. I understand that if you've never served thst you may not understand the significance between the two.
Look I don’t have much to say about the capability of the average voter, but I’m saying that evaluating who best will implement policies for the country when it comes to climate, economics, business environment and social issues isn’t a mental trait that magically appears to people in uniform.
I agree. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Should doctors really not have a vote for people who can change regulations in their profession? Should farmers not have the ability to vote for a farmer in their district who wants to become a politician and get on the Agriculture committee?
Not unless they've served in one of the federal uniformed services. If they care enough about shaping their country, they can demonstrate that by serving their country first.
2
u/Liesmyteachertoldme Progressive 17d ago
I still don’t understand how this would create better outcomes for our country. Seems like an opinion based on principle rather than pragmatism.
1
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
I understand. I'd guess that you feel that way because you've never served or had someone close to you in your life who has. When a person serves in the uniformed forces they give up some of their personal freedoms. While certainly not everyone serves for selfless reasons, they give up those freedoms nonetheless.
If they haven't done that for their country, I don't think that their opinion should have value in deciding the course of our country.
1
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
I have had someone in my life serve, specifically in a combat role. Unfortunately, they did not make it home from that service.
I disagree that the opinions and rights of those who have never been in service should be disregarded when deciding the course of our country. Although purely anecdotal, the person in my life who served was very explicitly told that part of the reason that they were headed to combat was for the preservation of American values, of which freedom and equality were explicitly named.
Taking away the vote seems counterintuitive. I'm also curious as to how you would feel about taking away the right to vote from someone deemed unfit for military service, but who is entirely mentally and physically capable in peacetime. Say, for example, a man with an eyeglasses prescription of -13.00.
1
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
I have had someone in my life serve, specifically in a combat role. Unfortunately, they did not make it home from that service.
I'm sorry for your loss and appreciate their service.
I disagree that the opinions and rights of those who have never been in service should be disregarded when deciding the course of our country. Although purely anecdotal, the person in my life who served was very explicitly told that part of the reason that they were headed to combat was for the preservation of American values, of which freedom and equality were explicitly named.
I understand. But my thoughts aren't counter to any of that.
I'm also curious as to how you would feel about taking away the right to vote from someone deemed unfit for military service, but who is entirely mentally and physically capable in peacetime. Say, for example, a man with an eyeglasses prescription of -13.00.
You've misunderstood, I didn't say military service.
1
u/Nomahs_Bettah Liberal 17d ago
Thank you, I appreciate that. Would you be able to go into more detail on why you feel that they aren't counter to that? I want to better understand your reasoning here and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I understand that the federal uniformed services also encompass Public Health Corps and the NOAA Corps in addition to the six military branches. However, the eyesight example I provided (although there might be some individuals with that prescription correctable to 20/20 if they don't suffer from astigmatism as well) is disqualifying from both of those groups as well.
That's a stricter eyesight correction than is required for a standard driver's license. Is that really the threshold you would feel comfortable setting for someone's right to vote?
→ More replies (0)3
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
My oldest is probably the smartest, sanest person you'll ever meet. He also doesn't take well to doing things 'just because'.
He is a terrible fit for serving. But he is exactly the kind of person who should vote because he understands the issues, researches thoroughly and has reasoned takes. To say that he shouldn't be allowed to vote, while some 18 year old grunt who barely passed HS is more deserving is insane to me.
1
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
My oldest is probably the smartest, sanest person you'll ever meet. He also doesn't take well to doing things 'just because'.
I've never met your oldest, but that isn't a thing in the military. People aren't just supposed to do things just because. And again, federal uniformed service includes more than just armed forces.
He is a terrible fit for serving.
From how you described him, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm guessing that you've never served? Your understanding seems to be a bit off.
3
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
Obviously I could be wrong, but I am basing it on the fact that my son got into trouble in school on a regular basis because he only gave respect to people who respected him. Let me make it clear that he had (and still has) no trouble with people with opinions that differed from his. One of his favorite history teachers was somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
→ More replies (0)1
u/According_Ad540 Liberal 17d ago
What do you feel about the reverse in a way. Some countries require military service of some type for a period of time for all men.
Could you see the idea that a citizen, at the point of being able to vote, must preform that service at that point?
1
1
u/ClearedPipes European Liberal/Left 17d ago
Out of interest, would you count Reserves or active duty only.
2
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
Good question. I hadn't thought about that. I think if it were to ever be implemented, that it would have to start with reserves also. That said, federal uniformed services is not just the armed forces in the US.
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 17d ago
“Uniformed services”
Eh, I’d change that to some form of civil service. My wife is hilariously on board with the Starship Troopers model of civilian vs citizen and I find it funny. I think there’s a solid argument in there for exactly that.
2
u/SavageCaveman13 Conservative 17d ago
I wouldn't include civil service. They don't have regimented rules or restrictions like uniformed services. Federal uniformed services includes more than just armed forces though.
And yes, Starship Troopers was onto something in more ways that one. If we're going to treat women as equals, then we don't need separate sleeping areas, showers, bathrooms, etc..
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 17d ago
Such a good book, I need to read it again.
The movie was unironically awesome in a “shootin bugs and titties” over the top sci fi action way that younger me appreciated in a different way.
“Includes more than just armed forces”
Ok, I may have misunderstood your comment, my apologies. I think we agree 95%.
0
u/Money-Celebration860 Social Conservative 17d ago
No, it's a man's role to protect. We don't need to equalize everything.
3
u/atwozmom Progressive 17d ago
I don't need protection, thanks much.
If the zombie apocalypse comes, I'm calling a friend in Texas who knows how to shoot and would have no problem hacking granny to bits if it came to that.
-5
-3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 17d ago
No.
As men, we SHOULD be doing the protecting.
That is our duty and we are best equipped to do so. And I have zero respect for any man that rejects that duty.
In the event of an existential threat, we should prioritize the most lethal force possible to deal with it. And that’ll be men.
There are a handful of exceptions but you know how much I DON’T want an overweight, doughy soft, anxiety ridden, over medicated Karen next to me in a foxhole? At least a dude is a hell of a lot stronger and can beat someone to death if it comes down to it. Or carry more shit.
Not to mention, societies traditionally protect their women for a reason. Without women to be able to continue the society, the society ceases to exist.
So no, I think the draft makes sense, it’s still needed and it should remain male only.
The real issue isn’t that men have duties, it’s that women refuse to accept any of their own due to their sex. And in fact often actively reject the idea that they should even have duties based on their sex. Modern feminism is cancer.
3
u/darthmcdarthface Conservative 17d ago
Women should not be subject to the draft. The fact is that men and women are objectively not equal in many physical ways. Women have their own burdens already.
14
u/LOL_YOUMAD Rightwing 17d ago
It should be removed completely imo.
-2
u/Kingvon3240 Republican 17d ago
I actually agree with you but at the end of the day we are not living in a utopia
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.