Woman Soldiers in CMBS; Woman being drafted

[cool breeze]

Alright I shouldn't have brought up UFC, obviously an optimum level of killer instinct and fighting prowess isn't what is necessary in a draftee army.  I always feel a little gross when I bring up evolutionary arguments, but for many many generations, enough to build up some tolerance in the gene pool,  the male populace as been rounded up and forced to fight and often die on the battlefield.  Male draftee armies arn't the best per man but they have been proven effective.  No need to experiment with an untested unproven concept in our most dire hour. 

[John Kettler]

While I concur that BFC, given the serious modeling constraints it labors under, isn't likely in the foreseeable future to depict women (maybe the modders can do something?), the reality is that, depicted or not, they are in the game. There are female fixed wing and rotary wing crews operating in several parts of the world now. Women have been cleared for ground combat, too. You could say the Army has "gotten religion" on this and has already qualified, to the exact standard as their male counterparts, female Rangers. Navy SEALs already have female intel specialists with them when they take down jihadist houses. From a philosophical perspective, it's my firm belief that with the rights, with equality under the law, come the attendant responsibilities and liabilities. Men don't get a vote on their legal obligations under the Selective Service Act, yet somehow it doesn't apply to women. As Spock would observe, "Fascinating." Or did I miss the mass protests of feminists demanding to be draftable? What a pity BFC can't create some way to rescale soldiers, if nothing else, to get rid of that Grenadier Guard height uniformity, never mind modeling gender differences.

Regards,

John Kettler

[cool breeze]

I totally get what you're saying JK, with the rights come the responsibilities.  Seems fair.  I basically see the draft as the one and only exception about this kind of thing.  Until men can get pregnant and suffer childbirth, no matter how equal things are they will never be the same and equal for the sexes.  Historically, war and draft are a big part of the cuts into the male populace, partly balancing the deaths and suffering woman go through to give birth.  Some of our roles in society are about our choices, like what we do for work, but others are not for us to decide.  Woman are the only group of people who is responsible for birthing the next generation.  That lets the society continue.  Along with everything else but that's an essential part.  Historically men getting drafted is kind of the man version of that, something they have to do as a group to keep the society going. 

The real solution to all of this is in Starship Troopers.  If/when the USA fails (1000s of years from now ), liberty should rise again like a phoenix; but in the more robust form talked about in the book.  Civilians are normal free people with rights but they can't vote.  Serving in the military makes you a citizen which let's you vote.  Seems to be a fairly limited government that's focused mainly on protecting humanity from the existential threats.  If you did it this way you'd have lots of woman soldiers but they would all be volunteers.

Edited May 13, 2017 by cool breeze

[sbobovyc]

Combat Mission: SJW Converged Edition

[Artemis258]

4 hours ago, cool breeze said:

 

The real solution to all of this is in Starship Troopers.  If/when the USA fails (1000s of years from now ), liberty should rise again like a phoenix; but in the more robust form talked about in the book.  Civilians are normal free people with rights but they can't vote.  Serving in the military makes you a citizen which let's you vote.  Seems to be a fairly limited government that's focused mainly on protecting humanity from the existential threats.  If you did it this way you'd have lots of woman soldiers but they would all be volunteers.

You've misread the book there my friend. Military service was far from the only way to acquire citizenship in Heinlein's universe, just the easiest. Unless you're talking about the movie in which case the political side of it is the director painting a different picture - that such a topic would inevitably trend to Junta, not democracy. 

[John Kettler]

cool breeze,

The instinct to protect women and children hearkens back to a long ago past when people were few and threats to survival many. I visited a plantation in South Carolina, established circa 1660, I believe, in which one husband's grave had no fewer than those of six deceased wives, all but one who died in childbirth, so I get that argument. There's also the issue of personal genetic survival, and that's without factoring in love, which is extremely difficult to quantify. Though the US maternal mortality rate has doubled, for a variety of reasons in recent years to 17.2 per 100,000, that is as nothing, statistically speaking, to what maternal death rates were in the US in 1900. Compare that 17.2 to the following passage from

The Disturbing, Shameful History of Childbirth Deaths

If you are pregnant, do not read this story.

By Laura Helmuth

(Fair Use)

"In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That’s way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died. Note that the rate is per birth, so the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth was much higher, perhaps 4 percent."

As you can see, bad as it is by our standards, the US per birth maternal mortality rate is not even 3% of the rates of what it was in the early 1900s. I think, therefore, the equality of loss argument collapses in a heap, for surely you're not going to try to tell me some 291,000  (US combat deaths only) died in childbirth during WW II or that 47,000 (US combat deaths) died during the Korean War? You might (haven't checked) find something resembling parity if you lumped together an aggregate roughly 6000 US combat fatalities for Iraq and Afghanistan and compared it with total maternal death her from 2011 to the present, but that is because modern CASEVAC and trauma care saves many soldiers who would otherwise have been dead. In light of these facts, I think the equality of risk argument is thoroughly refuted. Am going to skip the global over population facts and trends and let someone else detail those.

I say again, if multitudes of US women demand everything that men have as far as rights, equal pay for equal work, equal standing before the law (which it isn't, for they demonstrably get special treatment both in out of court), then I firmly believe they should shoulder the burden imposed on every male fit to serve under the Selective Service Act. This notion may not sit well with individuals, groups or society at large, but to me, that is a separate argument. If women are able to serve in combat and other roles, since some already do, then why should US women generally be exempt from any future draft? I see no rational basis for arguing why they should be exempt. Am arguing the numbers here, not making any political statement, unless pointing out equities and inequities under the law is being treated as political. From a demographic perspective, as of the 2010 US Census, in the 18-24 y.o. category, women outnumber men by ~5000. Details are in Table 1 here. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[MikeyD]

I recall spotting my first Iraq war amputee on the street outside of Harvard Square back in 2005. A young woman with a prosthetic limb out for a jog along the Charles river. To argue a dozen years later that women are somehow unfit to serve the nation is an insult to that soldier and to all female citizens who have lost their lives in the service to this country. As to the 'draft', that's straight-up slavery to the state. Barbaric and outmoded. Most modern armies today don't want to deal with the headaches that involuntary conscripts bring. Besides, what self-respecting Libertarian would allow themselves to be gang-pressed into serving the gubmint? Happily, the constitution solves the military manpower issue. Second amendment. All civilian owners of firearms are automatically subject to call to service as part of a well regulate militia.

[sburke]

uh oh...... you went and done it now Mikey....

[cool breeze]

Mikey D,

Really wasn't saying anything contrary to what you are saying.  We agree that woman can do a great job serving in combat roles in the military, and that woman shouldn't be drafted.  And I did say I didn't fill out my draft paperwork.  But national defense is one of the things libertarians are supportive of in my experience.  It's one of the few universally approved rolls of government really (among libertarians). 

Artemis,

It has been a long time since I read the book.  Was it called selective service?  While I didn't think it was only combat sorts of roles when  I was reading it I did get the impression it was generally military related stuff.  But it's been like decade, I'm probably mistaken.

And Jk thanks for keeping it bravely real as always. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by cool breeze

[Michael Emrys]

@cool breeze

Just in case you care:

Singular = woman

Plural = women

Notice the difference?

Michael

[cool breeze]

There is also man and woman to refer to all of em. Short for mankind and womankind.  But  youre right, typo and I don't really care, make rather a lot of them as I'm sure you noticed

Edited May 14, 2017 by cool breeze

[John Kettler]

cool breeze,

I neglected to point out a further salient matter. That is that with very few exceptions, wars typically last far longer than those initiating them or opposing them once begun ever expected. This reality, I believe, erodes the argument about the inapplicability, because of time available, of the draft. Right now, the US military, personnel and equipment alike) has been ground down by years on end of the GWOT, which presently girdles the globe. You've got people on their third or fourth tour, stop losses are in place (my own brother barely avoided one a few years back), and the Air Force is really short of transport pilots, many of whom have been lured away by the airlines. I have a brother-in-law who's a retired USAF LTC. I asked him whether he'd thought of returning to duty. Turned out he'd talked to the Air Force people seeking pilots and, after mutual review of when he last flew C-130s and how long and what it would take in resources and Air Force money to get qualified again, they decided 15 years away were simply too much to make it worthwhile. Seems to me we're not so much in a situation of doing something when the balloon goes up, but it's already up, even if most people don't bother to look skyward. What we clearly can't keep doing is operating the way we have, for it is unsustainable and will ultimately destroy the US military as an effective fighting force. Otherwise, someone in charge needs to scale back current operations and OPTEMPO or figure out a better, less resource, time and personnel intensive way than the current one.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎14‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 1:13 AM, Artemis258 said:

You've misread the book there my friend. Military service was far from the only way to acquire citizenship in Heinlein's universe, just the easiest. Unless you're talking about the movie in which case the political side of it is the director painting a different picture - that such a topic would inevitably trend to Junta, not democracy. 

Yup one of the other means of acquiring citizenship was money.....That type of political system already has a name, 'Fascism'. 

IIRC it was pointed out in the CM:BS screenshot thread that Ukrainian and Russian personnel are sometimes given feminine surnames already.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

Women in ground combat roles is a bad idea IMO. 

Three main reasons being:

1. A US army report from Iraq and Afghanistan, which basically said that women are more likely to die from wounds a man would survive.

2. Physique also works against women in ground combat roles. In general, women are weaker and smaller than men, and so if a female soldier ever found herself in hand to hand combat with a male enemy soldier, she would be at a severe disadvantage - again in general, of course, there are exceptions (G.I. Jane, Ronda Rousey xD). Lesser physical strength also correlates to other things like a reduced ability to carry ammunition, equipment, supplies, wounded comrades etc.  

3. Psychology/morale. I once read that experiments have been conducted which show that males have a much stronger psychological reaction to a fellow female soldier being killed or wounded than a male soldier. If this is true, then it is definitely worth considering.

I'm not trying to say that women are unfit for ground combat roles but simply that if we want the most combat effective soldiers as possible they should be male. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by AtheistDane