Women in Combat - What about this?

[muskrat89]

OK - I do not want this to spiral into a discussion regarding whether women should be in combat.

There are rumblings here in the US (rumours, agreed) that they may eventually need to re-institute the draft (selective service, for which I had to register by the way, when I moved here). If they do (or the next time they do, for that matter) - should women not be included? After all, they are an accepted part of the military now, for all intents and purposes....

 

[wongskc]

To add to this question, if Canada were to implement conscription, would include women as well? I know chances of selective service in Canada are close to zilch now, but I‘m just curious.

Now, to answer the original question, I would expect so if trades that they can be accepted to are in serious need of warm bodies. After all, if the US is really hurting for infantry, but women are not allowed on the front lines this would be a moot point.

 

[1feral1]

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?

I think national service is a great idea.

Regards,

Wes

 

[combat_medic]

I disagree with conscription for a number of reasons, however, if a country does decide to implement it, I think it should be for both men and women. Any time conscription has been authorized, there are always a lot of "outs" for people with good reason. For example, drafting a mother and father from the same family would be a big no no.

 

[Gunnar]

Since we‘re not discussing whether or not women should be in *combat*, but rather, whether or not they should be in the armed forces...well, why wouldn‘t you draft them?

Women are capable of fulfilling a number of important and unique roles in the military, and always have been. Even when they were restricted to clerk or nursing positions, it‘s not like they weren‘t NEEDED. If you‘re gonna draft PEOPLE, you draft them ALL.

 

[casing]

I think they should be included. In fact, I think that there should be a mandatory period of service for everyone once they reach 18 or 19.

 

[GrahamD]

Originally posted by Casing:
[qb] I think they should be included. In fact, I think that there should be a mandatory period of service for everyone once they reach 18 or 19. [/qb]

Maybe mandatory service would be good for people who do not enroll in a post secondary institution within 18-24 months of graduating highschool or something.

However, I don‘t think people who are willing to fill the voids in skilled trades, medicine, etc. by starting into their education immediately should be burdened with a 2 or 3 year commitment to the Armed Forces.
The army isn‘t for everyone, and you only get out what you put in, and if you put in a bunch of people who are resistant to their mandatory service, then you would see a decline in the quality of personnel.
You would see resistance in those who didn‘t plan to attend college/university as well of course, but I believe they would be more easily broken of their defiant attitude, since they would obviously not feel as though they were genuinely missing out on better opportunities.


The draft for women?

Why not? Even if you were going to limit them from being drafted into combat units, you could still free up a lot of human resources from the support trades to fill those combat roles.

 

[Yes Man]

I don‘t really like the idea of drafting women. The first thing is it would cause a massive change in army's facilities/equipment (everything from washrooms to different size uniforms), to accommodate for a much larger female population. This will cost a great deal of money, and will go to waste once the draft is stopped and male to female ratios return.

The second thing would be forcing more men into combat positions. Just because they are men does not mean that they will want to be at the pointy end of the stick. If women fill up the majority of support jobs this means that many men will be forced into combat arms, I don't think this is a good thing.

Third stability at home would be even more damaged during a draft if women went to war. This is not just an issue being at home with the children; this would be more of an economy issue. Amongst the many countries in the world, which have mandatory army service, very few of them force women to join, because of the large impact it would have on the nation's economy. You always want to have a stable job/buying presents at home and by guarantying that women will not be drafted, you keep a substantial part of the market intact.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

I don‘t think facilities (washrooms, equipment) are that strong of a concern, because its not like they will be drafting that many soldiers for garrison duty, they would be deployed, or replacing home units that are deployed. I think the US can afford to acquire more uniforms as necessary.

Interesting second point however, since front line combat positions are limited to males, so females would need to be employed more in other areas. Do drafted soldiers have any choice for what their MO will be?

 

[condor888000]

Seems to me your views are a bit outdated yes man. I believe that Canada already allows women in infantry so how would the draft of women incerease the number of men in combat? If you are talking about the states with their slightly different views I understand.

General question: Does the CF have two sizes of uniforms, one for men, and one for women?

And could you please elaborate on the econmic impacts? Seems to me the economy would be just as affected if they drafted a large number of men.

 

[Yes Man]

How do they setup facilities in the CF right now? Are there different showers, washrooms, and quarter, for women and men?

 

[Yes Man]

Originally posted by condor888000:
[qb] Seems to me your views are a bit outdated yes man. I believe that Canada already allows women in infantry so how would the draft of women incerease the number of men in combat? If you are talking about the states with their slightly different views I understand.

General question: Does the CF have two sizes of uniforms, one for men, and one for women?

And could you please elaborate on the econmic impacts? Seems to me the economy would be just as affected if they drafted a large number of men. [/qb]

Well I was talking about the U.S in regards to the combat arms, but I think it still applies to Canada. When you look at the physical shape (strength and endurance) of both men and women on average, men fair better, that's just the way we were born. Now because you are picking these women at random there are going to be lots more that are not fit enough to fill a job in the infantry or other combat arm. This will create a trend of pushing more men into the combat arms. Though I am not sure if you get to choose you MO when drafted.

Also there are many sizes of uniform, its just that women are on average smaller so you are going to need smaller uniforms. (note this will only really be a problem when you start talking about 100,000s of people)

The economic impact will come from the lack of job security when there is a draft (ie you will not know when you will be drafted thus you may have to leave you job at any time). This has a huge impact on the buying market. Now by making sure that women are not drafted, it will give them even greater job security (due to the male draft) and will help keep the economy working.

 

[combat_medic]

Yes Man: Of course they have washrooms, showers, living quarters and uniforms for women. Do you think we have communal showers or something? How do you think we‘re going to get clean?

As for uniforms, women are only a few inches shorter, on average, than men. To say that women can‘t serve because of size differences, then you could also say that Asian people can‘t serve or be drafted because they‘re smaller than the average Caucasian male, and the uniform sizes would be problomatic.

Forcing men into combat roles in a time of war is also a moot point. With the exception of consciencious objectors, the majority of people who are drafted will go into the combat arms. Also, as you may or may not have noticed, women are perfectly capable of serving in combat arms trades as well, and are doing so right now.

Third, your whole "economic impact" idea is insane! A wartime economy is not depending on the consumer at home to keep the economy running. During WWII, the vast majority of economic resources were focused on making war, and the people at home were discouraged from buying comsumer products at all ventures. Things like home gardens, recycling and all other methods of reducing purchasing were heavily encouraged. Shortages of everything was common, and people had to learn to do without. All the resources were devoted to making war, and even the women back at home were often required to do volunteer service for the war effort.

 

[muskrat89]

No one has addressed this from a parent‘s perspective. I think many people (including me) are old fashioned enough that they would have a much tougher time with a daughter getting drafted, than with a son getting called up. Thoughts?

 

[Yes Man]

There are many ways that they could deal with the facilities, in some places in Europe they are communal. Also they could take turns (ie guys take a shower then girls come in after guys have left)

Uniforms would be just one small aspect of the overall cost of refitting an army for a 50/50 male female ratio. The amount of Asians should stay the same in the army so their uniforms will be reused. The ratio of males to females in the army will most likely return to its pre-draft ratio which is not 50/50 leaving 100,000s of small uniforms not being use.

In Canada there would be lots of consciences objectors, that is a huge exception.

The economic impact is not my idea. But what you are talking about in regards to WWII was not the situation I was talking about. That would be more of a total devotion to the war effort, were I was talking about needing a 100,000 more troops in Iraq. I doubt they would change the whole US economy over that, but it would cause a major scare in the job market.

BTW this is just random thoughts from a 20 year old university student who has not slept in a week because of exams, there is good odds I‘m wrong. I would not even say my opinion is worth $.02.

 

[condor888000]

What is the big deal with having a 50/50 male femal ratio? Contractors just need to step up production of smaller sizes.

While there would be many consiences objectors I doubt that there would be so many as to render a draft ineffective.

And if fewer people were avaible for hiring wouldn‘t companies raise pay to recieve more applicants, thereby giving the average consumer more money to spend? Then wouldn‘t most people spend more making the economy stronger?

If I‘m wrong correct me, I‘m a 16 year old kid that has too much time on his hands.

 

[Yes Man]

Uniform are just one aspect (and not that big of one) but it would cost money to create smaller sizes and then you are going to have a large stock pile of small uniforms. After the draft is over the army would return it its current ratio of males to females and this stock pile could no longer be used.

The same would happen if they had to build womens quarter, bathrooms showers, none of these buildings would not be used after the draft. Its really just an issue of cost.

 

[condor888000]

First of all any excess uniforms could be saved for later use.
Second, I believe that both the US and the CF already have seperate quaters and if there are enough fewer females, they could move males into the unoccupied units.

 

[Yes Man]

I remember reading about similar problem that occurred with a logging company around Thunder Bay area. The posted ads saying they were looking for men to do work over the summer. Woman's rights groups got a hold of this and protested. So the logging company said that they would take on women workers. So they built new washrooms, showers, quarters for women to live in. The first year, there was a bunch of women who went to work for the logging company (as a matter of principal I guess) but by the second year, no women applied. So all that happened was the logging company was stuck with a few million dollar investment in new facilities and almost no return.

 

[Yes Man]

Originally posted by condor888000:
[qb] First of all any excess uniforms could be saved for later use.
Second, I believe that both the US and the CF already have seperate quaters and if there are enough fewer females, they could move males into the unoccupied units. [/qb]

Uniforms are saved for later use, but because there are going to be sizes that will no longer represent the sizes need by the army they will not be used.

But these buildings will only be needed during the time of the draft. So when the draft is over and the number decrease you are not going to have any males to move into the unoccupied units. The problem is during the draft you are going to have to have 2 units instead of 1.