Women should be drafted: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Women should be drafted » Women should be drafted

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Women should be drafted

TheArchitect
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 113

Posted 07/26/08 - 12:42 PM: Subject: Women should be drafted	#1
It is now obvious that the next step towards achieving greater sexual equality would be to draft women as well as men during times of war and peace. For years men have been the noble heroes to protect the women and children at home, but since the advocacy of womens' rights during the twentieth century, times have changed. It is clear that the legal rights of women have vastly improved and have reached a state of equilibrium, yet men must continue the burden of being drafted. It is no wonder, then, that some feminists believe that we have yet to escape a semi-patriarchical society. The policy of forcing only males, strong or weak, to fight and die for their country while neglecting the numerous amount of physically able females is nothing but arbitrary considering that each individual woman has just as much power in decision-making for the country. The philosophy behind the policy of male conscription is exactly what the feminist movement has been trying to bust since the second wave, yet the hypocricy of it all still exists in our sexually "equalizing" society.

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2290

Posted 07/26/08 - 01:03 PM:	#2
Maybe no one should be drafted? The vast majority of people who use this site come from places (UK & US) where there's no draft so the issue isn't really all that relevant to them. Is anyone really going to disagree that in a purely formal sense, it's hypocritical to (1) draft men and not women (2) claiming the existence of equality between the two groups. However this purely formal hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean (a) that it's a bad thing (b) that the reasons for its existence, as well conversely the reasons for potentially over-turning it, have anything to do with patriachy (apart from, perhaps, in a purely formal sense again).
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 07/26/08 - 01:38 PM:	#3
The draft is indeed obsolete, many countries have already gotten rid of it, and in many where it is still practised, it is more a civil service than a military one. Large scale military engagement is also becoming obsolete though it may come as a surprise for many a US citizen who is not bothered by having more than 50% of his tax going to feed obsolete military programs.

SSovereign
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 07/26/08 - 06:28 PM:	#4
enkidu wrote: Large scale military engagement is also becoming obsolete There were people who said that after World War I, and after World War II. My guess is that your prediction will fare no better.
http://www.sovereignism.org/

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 07/26/08 - 07:26 PM:	#5
SSovereign wrote: There were people who said that after World War I, and after World War II. My guess is that your prediction will fare no better. Well, your guess against my prediction, can you argue in favor of your guess ? I can, in favor of my prediction, let me fire first then, since you seem to have declined this opportunity: The world of today is much more entangled than ever before, all nations are dependent on some others for their energy and food supply, their financial viability, their informational operations. In such a world, any conflict will be settled much before a war is even attempted, and massive attacks are just useless (Afghanistan is a great illustration of that). Sun Zi is the new Clausewitz: The fight is over before it even started. Consider the two main powers that some says will clash in the near future, USA and China, I can already tell you who has already won this war, it does not take a genius to figure out why. The only perspective of a military clash would be a madman getting hold of a nuclear arsenal, who would be able to convince a significant number of people to follow him in his madness, that may happen, the likelihood is simply very low. Nothing that can be compared with the inter-wars period, given the frustration engendered by WW1 settlement. History does not repeat itself, it takes more than a vague historical reference to analyse a current situation.

SSovereign
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 07/26/08 - 07:58 PM:	#6
enkidu wrote: The world of today is much more entangled than ever before, all nations are dependent on some others for their energy and food supply, their financial viability, their informational operations. In such a world, any conflict will be settled much before a war is even attempted, and massive attacks are just useless (Afghanistan is a great illustration of that). Actually, Afghanistan (and Iraq, and numerous other contemporary armed conflicts around the world) shows that you are wrong. You say "any conflict will be settled much before a war is even attempted," yet there are numerous wars raging around the world even as you say those very words. You say "massive attacks are just useless"... well, obviously some find them useful or (e.g.) the U.S. would never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. There is absolutely nothing about deep entanglement which guarantees everlasting peace -- far from it, actually. The only perspective of a military clash would be a madman getting hold of a nuclear arsenal, who would be able to convince a significant number of people to follow him in his madness, that may happen, the likelihood is simply very low. Interestingly enough, Saddam did not need any real nukes in order for a military clash to happen. History does not repeat itself, it takes more than a vague historical reference to analyse a current situation. It also takes more than a Sun Zi quote bundled together with assertions that are shown to be patently false by the wars that are happening at this very moment. History does not repeat itself exactly, but that hardly means it does not repeat itself at all.
http://www.sovereignism.org/

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 07/26/08 - 08:17 PM:	#7
SSovereign wrote: Actually, Afghanistan (and Iraq, and numerous other contemporary armed conflicts around the world) shows that you are wrong. You say "any conflict will be settled much before a war is even attempted," yet there are numerous wars raging around the world even as you say those very words. You say "massive attacks are just useless"... well, obviously some find them useful or (e.g.) the U.S. would never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. There is absolutely nothing about deep entanglement which guarantees everlasting peace -- far from it, actually. I wrote that large military engagement are BECOMING obsolete, not that they don't exist anymore. A lot of obsolete things last for years after they have become obsolete, it does not make them the most efficient choice. Clearly many conflicts still linger in many part of the world, but without solving any problem, history is at a standstill in these regions, war as a "continuation of policy by other means" (in Clausewitz words I-1-24) is becoming obsolete, some other means are actually much more efficient, only stupid or corrupted government will now resort to war to achieve nothing (except the personal profit of a few). Usefulness possibly, but certainly not political. SSovereign wrote: Interestingly enough, Saddam did not need any real nukes in order for a military clash to happen. Iraq attack was stupid in a political sense. Clearly though, it has fed some bank accounts. SSovereign wrote: It also takes more than a Sun Zi quote bundled together with assertions that are shown to be patently false by the wars that are happening at this very moment. History does not repeat itself exactly, but that hardly means it does not repeat itself at all. None of my assertion has been shown patently false, you simply misunderstood them. Hope this clarifies a bit, and that we can start the real debate that makes you think massive military intervention is still an intelligent choice in order to achieve a political goal (and feeding private bank accounts of friends is not a political goal, I hope you understand that, or we'd better stop right now).

SSovereign
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 07/26/08 - 08:19 PM:	#8
As for the OP, in the state I advocate, service in the national forces will be a precondition for citizenship. This shall apply regardless of sex.
http://www.sovereignism.org/

Matt C
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 150

Posted 07/26/08 - 10:18 PM:	#9
Perhaps is for the better that they are not drafted due to physical limitations, but continuing to incorporate them in front line positions may be best.

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 228

Posted 07/27/08 - 01:11 AM:	#10
It is highly unlikely that the draft in the U.S. and the U.K.is obsolete as the armies of these nations would be quickly overstretched if anything more than a modest local war errupted. As long as there is the possibilty of war how can it be obsolete? If, for example, the present situation in the Middle East unravels and a widespread war develops involving Israel, U.S., Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (and I'm not saying it will but who knows?), to protect American interests, especially oil in the Gulf region, can anyone doubt that war on this scale would necessitate a general draft? Would women be involved in support roles? Why not? But actual fighting, very doubtful. Even in the Israeli army women don't actually fight. Only in Al Qaeda where they are sent in with explosives round their waists because they're on a Jihad, see?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.