Today’s shocker; women oppose being required to register for the draft
The Hill reports that Rasmussen Reports took a poll and found that 52% of women oppose being forced to register for the Selective Service. But 61% of men said that it’s only fair.
Voters in surveys for years have supported women in the military being allowed to fight on the front lines and perform all the combat roles that men do. Women are more enthusiastic about this than men are.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of men think the United States should have a military draft, a view shared by just 21% of women. Men are also more supportive of requiring U.S. citizens to spend one year in public service.
Voters under 40 oppose a military draft more than their elders do. These younger voters, the ones who would be drafted if a draft was reinstated, are slightly less supportive of making women register as well.
Well, it’s probably not that much of a shocker at all. It’s easy to “want’ something, but it’s not easy to actually “do” something. The social justice warriors are mostly not draft age, nor are they of the age of women who would serve in the military, let alone actual combat, so the most important thing to them is the “equality” of it all. But the demographic who are closer to the age of the women who would actually be affected by these policies, they are less likely to support the the idea of it all.
It was a nice “idea” when it was women who volunteered for military service, but now that the choice might not be theirs, well, it’s a different story, isn’t it? Who got their panties wadded when it was just men who had to register? They keep using that term “social justice” but I don’t think they know what it means.
Category: Military issues
Equality: it’s not exactly all “sh!ts and giggles”.
Right when you have to pay an equal responsibility for equal access it sometimes stings a little to be reminded of the old adage, be careful what you wish for as you just might get it.
These stupid liberal bitches been hollering for “equality” for YEARS, now they have convinced the men and now they don’t want equality or the draft, you better want what you wish for morons!
some animals are more equal than others apparently.
Reminds of kids that can’t wait to grow up and then…reality.
I don’t get polling. I really don’t. The first question of three was “Should the United States have a military draft?” My question is, “When? In time of war? Certainly. Otherwise? Probably not.” Does the pollster go with the first Yes or the second No? I have no idea.
The second question asked was rather long, and I don’t know why. “All males in the United States are required to register with the federal Selective Service System when they turn 18 in the event there is a need for a military draft. Top military commanders now say that with women gaining access to all combat roles, they also should be required to register for the draft. Do you agree or disagree that women should be required to register for the draft?”
What’s the purpose of the second sentence and what influence, if any, does that sentence have on the response? The question seems perfectly fine with just the first and third sentences.
The third question is, “Should U.S. citizens be required to spend a year in public service?” What’s public service? Working for government? Being a politician? Why a year? Like I said, I don’t get this polling business.
They’re worded in a way to bias the responses. Had the question been, “Should the United States activate the military draft during a future world war II type war?” they would’ve received different results.
Then, to measure willingness to support the draft, they could follow that up with another question, “Should the United States have a military draft to support a major regional war?”
Naturally, this would provide different results.
The second question should’ve gone something like this:
There is no program to actively draft people into the military. However, current federal law requires males, 18-25, to register for the draft. Efforts were made to require women in that age range to also register for the draft. Since they couldn’t serve in the front lines, those efforts did not lead to women needing to register for the draft. Now that women can serve in the front lines, do you support requiring women, 18 to 25, to register for the draft?
Not everybody is qualified for military service. They can serve the public in other ways, like working for the federal, state, or local governments as civilian employees and volunteers. During time of war, would you support a requirement for people, not eligible for military service, to perform public service in lieu of military service?
Those are just drafts, and would be refined and tightened up. But, they would do a better job at measuring actual sentiments.
Those questions would’ve gotten rejected in a graduate or doctoral level research class… at least in one where the standards of how things are supposed to be done.
When the people doing the polling have an agenda, they’ll break ethical rules in order to get the results that they want.
I’m currently enrolled in a doctoral level research class.
Thanks for the response doc-to-be! And that’s why I don’t put any stock in polls. Over the years, I have seen far too many examples of bias in poll questions, some obvious and others quite subtle, with trigger words that appeal more to emotion than to intellect.
The second question could also have been broken out into two separate questions which would have allowed it to pull a third data point:
Currently males over 18 are required to register for Selective Service. Are you in favor of having females register for Selective Service?
Recent policy changes now allow women in combat arms branches. Do you support such changes for women in combat roles?
Making such a change would mean you could then query for respondents who both oppose women registering for Selective Service and support them in combat arms, evidence of an apparent double standard. Adding a gender demographic element to the query might also be interesting.
The women who object to the idea of women registering for the draft should take their complaints to the feminists who have insisted that women have the right to serve in combat slots.
I am old enough to remember when women served honorably in all the service branches, as WACs, WAVEs, WAFs and BAMs. It worked before the Feminazis ruined it for Ladies everywhere.
Welcome to the bigs rookie, this is how it fucking works. You want to run with the big boys, you gotta pay the big price of admission.
Either you hit the 98mph Fastball or off to Pawtucket for you.
You need to come up to OUR standard, not us lowering to YOURS
Yep.
Just like communism; it looks good on paper, but sucks in reality.
Or, as we said in the Iron:
Ya wanna run with the big dogs? Be prepared for some of those big fleas.
Otherwise, shut yer pie hole and get off the job. NOW.
They keep using that word, “equality.”
I do not think it means what they think it means.
Whenever a SJW screeches about “equality” they ALWAYS mean equality of outcome. When it comes to equality of accountability and responsibility, well, that’s your old white male “privilege”.
Ah, yes. It’s about “fairness” but people frequently mistake fairness in process with fairness in result. Not coincidentally, justice and fairness are used interchangeably. Thus, social justice means social fairness IN RESULT, not process. I could write a ream about this matter as it pertains to our so-called “progressives.”
“shocker”…lolz
As long as it ain’t the minivan.
You’ll never look at Breyers Neapolitan Ice Cream the same way again.
http://i.imgur.com/GGjS6fw.jpg
😀 😀 😀
“Bad Chip! Bad! Bad!”
(smile)
Poor vanilla-never gets any action.
Ermahgerd!
That noise you hear is me falling down laughing so hard I woke the cat.
This ‘no!’ response is what I expected. They want the goodies and treats, but they don’t want to pay for them. Well, it ain’t Hallowe’en, girls, and the goodies and treats come with a price. If you aren’t willing to pay it, then piss off. And PLEASE don’t thank me or anyone else for our service unless you’ve put in your own time.
Yep. All of the privilege, none of the responsibility.
Seems to be a foundation stone of the Left’s point of view.
So, they want equality except when it’s the same equality as men have. Gotcha.
Interesting poll results from not that long ago –
http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/29/broad-support-for-combat-roles-for-women/
Funny how things suddenly change when one get’s what one asks for.
29 Jan 2013:
66% of all women in this poll were in favor of women in combat jobs.
74% of women in the age group 18-29 in favor. 76% of Democraps in favor.
Everyone forgets that the draft was very unpopular. There are few politicians in either party who would vote to reinstate the draft for any type of national service. So all this hand wring about females registering is just a lot of hot air from people who never faced the draft when the possibility of going to was real. In my opinion everyone who is 18 should register with the selective service just as a contingency for a national emergency. Not all national service must be in the military. Look at how many current political leaders avoided the draft which was not frowned upon at the time, now they try to hide what they did. The list is long.
Terms which have been artificially manipulated for decades now produce confusion among most if not all of us.
“Equal” is not synonymous with “same.” My height, or lack of height, restricts things which I do well but does not devalue my worth generally. The NBA has never been a viable goal at least as a star player. Performing some other role within the NBA? Sure, with training, education, whatever. Same thing applies to military service.
The only reason for having folks register is preparing to draft them should the need arise. A significant percentage of the population still does not want to see body bags of female warriors being removed from the battlefield. Drafting women into combat could have no other outcome.
Is that what we want as a society? Meanwhile, the comments to the effect of “this is what they want, give it to them” are directed to the wrong people. The young women who would be killed by being drafted are not the ones pushing the “social justice” agenda.
“Equal” is not synonymous with “same.”
Good point, OWB. Too often we throw around terms and rarely stop to examine what they mean. I say “ball” and one guy thinks of a baseball, another a beach ball, and another a fancy dance party.
“the comments to the effect of “this is what they want, give it to them” are directed to the wrong people. The young women who would be killed by being drafted are not the ones pushing the “social justice” agenda.”
You’re generally correct. But the ones who have to register, and have the future possibility of being drafted, can tell the SJW FemiNazis pushing the “social justice” to STFU and STFD.
Cannot disagree with your sentiment, of course. However, should we really expect the youngsters to be the most vocal? Many of them simply do not have the experience and/or maturity to effectively do much about it.
But, yes, I do still expect them to try. At least some of us made our voices and opinions known when we were that age in spite of concurrently trying to finish school, build careers, start families and all the other things young adults do. Sadly, most of my generation did nothing, which contributed to the mess we are in today.
Men have to register no matter how they feel about the military, draft or anything else so why, pray tell, should women be exempt even if they are not pushing for the social justice bullshit?
If we are going to allow women in combat then they should have to register for the draft. No exemptions.
Title IX prevents sex discrimination (among other things) in college admission. That includes eligibility for Federal tuition loans and grants. To be eligible for a Federal loan or grant, males must show proof of Selective Service registration or exemption. Not females.
Title IX lawsuit coming??
This also applies to getting just about any job with a connection to the Federal Government, be it direct Federal employment such as at a Naval Shipyard, a contractor position working for a government agency, or a private corporation with government contracts (for example, McDonalds). I served 10 years active duty but still had to prove I had registered with Selective Service way back when I was 18 when I applied for my current job at the age of 40. Why should a woman be allowed all sorts of opportunities not given to a male if they are not required to abide by the same regulations the male must by law?
I disagree. There are plenty of younger women that have pushed the “I am woman, hear me roar” meme, when talking about women in combat. Even though they either aren’t in the military at the current time, or don’t have any inclination to join the military and volunteer for combat MOS’s. Some brag about how they can max the PT test, etc. and can compete with the men, or, in fact, do it better.
Well, now’s the time to “ruck the fuck up”. Put your money where your yapper is, ladies, and start volunteering for combat jobs and start writing your congresscritters and get them to push for adding females to the draft registration.
Yup! I’ve also seen males who were platinum PT Studs that would fall out on a ruck march while grunts like me kept going, ditto with many other 20-somethings.
Just curious, API: how long is a ruck march, in real time?
I believe that EFMB and EIB standard is 12 miles in 3 hours.
It depends on the outfit and the training, I remember when I was a “Joe” in Korea and we’d do say an eight to ten-miler for Sergeant’s time and our CO would have us to a 15 miler for the required monthly road march (2ID CG policy at the time was that EVERY company did a minimum of one road march per month),68W58 gave us an example of what one has to do to pass a couple of Army Schools, I’ve done 10 and 12-milers and left young PT studs behind me!
“So this is how it feels to stand up and pee…”
If you wanna dance, you gottapoo pay the band.
Should save the government some money with all of those women who don’t want to register. Than means fewer student loans for womyn’s studies degrees
No surprise here.
Everyone wants to be military until it’s time to do military shit.
The question presented was not about equality in the draft. The question t was about whether they support a draft at all. For both men and women. Different question in a different context. So it is useful data to the issue about whether women should ALSO be drafted.
If the question was “should women have to register for the draft as well as men” I suspect it would be a narrower margin.
The opposition women have to the draft, regardless of how it is framed, is not something women should be disparaged for. I think it is every reasonable to say that a free society should not have a draft. At the very least we should not have one unless we had a more reliable political process for ensuring our military was used in a way that legitimate served in the interests and the defense of the American people and the nation.
What part of “…a poll … found that 52% of women oppose being forced to register for the Selective Service” did you not understand? Registering for Selective Service has nothing to do with supporting or rejecting the Draft.
Yeah, that part of the poll’s results does seem fairly clear – as does the disparity of opinion by gender. From the Rasmussen article, a quote that spells it out:
Be nice. He may have become confused because of the dread that the word “draft” brings to those of the Liberal persuasion. Allow him to lube up, take care of any “necessary purges,” and I’m sure he’ll go back and read the story with a clearer head that can recognize more than monosyllabic unicorn farts.
Registering for Selective Service does not automatically mean being drafted, nor does it mean that anyone will be sent directly to a combat zone. It never has. There were plenty of men drafted during WWII who were not sent to combat zones. Women were recruited as volunteers to release men to assignments outside CONUS. Not all of those men were sent to combat zones.
This idea that reviving the draft automatically means ‘sent into combat’ is a false assumption. There were plenty of women who were nurses in the South Pacific (yes, that was what the musical was about) during WWII, and later were sent to Korea and to Vietnam, and as you know if you were there, the Baltics and later on the Middle East.
However, if we are going to put this in the light of sex discrimination, which is unlawful under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then if men have to register for Selective Service in order to get government loans for school, certain jobs, etc. (all listed above), I think women should have to do that, as well. Fair is fair.
As OWB has pointed out so eloquently, “equal” does not mean “same as”. Equal opportunities for job offers does not mean the same thing as equal physical strength and/or stamina.
It just seems to me that we might need to heed the words of a dead president about this:
‘Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.’
If generations of women can do something for their country willingly, why should other generations be exempt from it?
believe I read that for every triggerpuller in Vietnam, there were over 100 support personnel who rarely if ever heard a shot fired. In the unlikely event of a draft, nothing says these women would be thrown in to combat arms in disproportionate quantities.
Me, I grew up with the draft and have no objections to a 2 year national service period. My youngest, due to asthma, was ineligible for the military and wound up doing two years of Americorps instead. Nothing wrong with that. I went in just post-Vietnam and many of the senior NCOs at the time, who had actual experience of working with draftees, felt thy were as good or better troops than anyone else – and in most cases, just wanted to keep their noses clean and get through it. (A far better attitude than many of the volunteers in the mid-70s.)
Let’s not forget about the many Doctors and Nurses that were drafted over the years to suit the Military’s needs. Doctors were directly Commissioned as Army Captains while Nurses started off with the rank of First Lieutenant.
How about the fact that males nurses couldn’t be commissioned as Nurse Corps Officers until 1955?
As far as the 2nd lieutenant/captain policy. As far as I know a newly graduated RN is still commissioned a 2LT and a Physician out of medical school a CPT.
A Nurse Practitioner would be at least a CPT depending on the specialty, time, educational level and needs of the service. A physician similarly would enter with higher rank if they were post residency/fellowship and were in a more or less needed specialty.
This all boils down to the the old “Rights versus responsibility” argument. Or as my late mother would say, “Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die”.
To the thumb-sucking, intellectually inbred sacks of degenerate shit that call themselves Feminists these days:
“HA! HA!”
– Nelson Muntz
To the decent women folk who sat on their hands and let the Feminists run their agenda on you:
“Too bad, so sad. Shoulda stood up and fought back when you had the chance.”
– Everyone Who Has a Clue.
From VA statistics;
2,594,000 Personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. Jan. 1, 1965 – Mar. 28, 1973
25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees.
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
Of the 2.6 million, between 1 – 1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
Want to shut down the “equality argument” instantly? This works for me:
“I will fully support assigning women to direct combat-arms positions when the NFL, the NHL, NBA, Boxing, and all Olympic sports are not gender-separated. Further, they will be required, by law, to assure that women are proportionately represented (at least 50.5% at last census).”
When they reply that this is ridiculous…simply point out that they have demonstrated that this is proof that the genders are not equal in all ways and that their position also proves that they are concerned less with the lives of soldiers and the ability of the military to successfully perform its mission than they are with making political points.
I have never heard a rational argument made after that point. In fact…I spend most of my time laughing.
True, there are no women in the NFL, but you can bet that if some woman could kick a 75 yard field goal, she would be drafted.
You are comparing a highly competitive and profit driven entertainment industry to an entry level job that is essentially open to anyone willing to serve.
The fact is, that statistically there are very few American men that participate in professional sports compared to the overall population. Check out this NCAA chart:
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Probability-of-going-pro-methodology_Update2013.pdf
With football as an example, you start with over a million high school football players. By their senior year the number is down to 300,000, of whom only 15,000 or so make it to their senior year playing ball. 250 0f those are drafted into the NFL. overall, less than one percent of high school football players will make it to the NFL.
We are nowhere near that selective for military service. For the Army alone we enlist around 50,000 Soldiers a year, over 10,000 into the infantry (Old data, but it gives you the idea:)
http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/605464/dod-announces-recruiting-and-retention-numbers-for-fiscal-2015-through-february
The better analogy would be to compare women in the infantry to women playing high school football. There are over a thousand across the country.
Almost all of whom are kickers. Maybe there are a few who are regular position players, but I suspect that they mostly play for schools where there are serious problems filling out the roster. Find me a female player who starts at a position other than kicker for a state championship caliber team and we’ll talk.
The purpose of the analogy regarding sports is this: we mostly discourage girls from playing sports against boys (especially in sports like football, where brute force matters) because the physical disparity is so apparent, despite the stakes being fairly low. And yet in combat, where the stakes are infinitely higher, we are supposed to pretend that that disparity doesn’t matter,
I should also point out that the Army is also having trouble filling out it’s roster with qualified applicants. If only the top 10% of women (speaking in terms of physical performance) opt to enlist for armor/infantry, they could replace the bottom 10% of men who can’t do the job.
Did you not get the part about how those football teams who are adding females are what you would call not so competitive? That’s the point, you don’t want a less competitive force in what is literally a life and death competition.
I don’t know why you would presume that the numbers would ever equal anything close to 10 percent. Using the numbers for football players you provided above there are 1,086,627 kids playing high school football. ESPN notes that 1561 of those were girls (and notes that “most were kickers”) http://espn.go.com/blog/high-school/girl/post/_/id/462/girls-tackling-football-across-the-country
That equals .00143 or about one out of 700, which would be 14 out of the 10,000 grunts mentioned above. So, maybe half a platoon every year (even accounting for a lot of soccer players who are brought on to kick extra points), you are missing 10% by a factor of about 70.
Let me break it to you: Joining the the Army ain’t that competitive either. Do you think the Army holds some sort of combine between applicants to make sure that only the best gets the 11B slots each month (Answer: They don’t).
That said, the Army does and will maintain standards in training and to graduate from OSUT (or BOLC) and earn an MOS.
I don’t presume that we will see 10%; I think the number will be less than one percent in these jobs. I don’t think the overall percentage of women in the Army will change much at all.
The Marine Corps had 239 or so complete training to standard. Given that the Army is a few times larger than the Marines we could see a few hundred over the course of a few years.
Of course, that doesn’t matter and no one cares about the numbers because both the CSA and CMC have committed to maintaining high standards and not establishing quotas.
Interestingly, 68W has been open to women for years, and women have been allowed to serve as line medics for the last few years. Of course, even before the policy change, Army commanders bent the rules by attaching women to infantry and armor battalions due to the shortage of male medics and the inherent unfairness of making them serve repeated tours in maneuver units. In other words, the Army called on women to do a tough job when needed help in combat. Why not allow qualified women to keep doing the job?
On top of that, these last few MOSs are among those for which the Army is offering a variety of bonuses- 13B/F and 19D are heavily incentivized, and 11X and 19K carry quick ship bonuses.
If you are really about standards and the best Soldier for the job, then you should also support letting fully qualified women who meet all standards in training earn the MOS and serve in these jobs.
Gosh-thanks so much for breaking that to me-I really appreciate your ability to change arguments from comment to comment (“it’ll be 10%”, “no wait, no it won’t”).
Having been a medic for over 20 years, I’ve been in units that both included and excluded females. I’ve had some crackerjack female medics, but it’s also been females who have given me the most trouble-and I’ve seen commanders make allowances for them that they would never make for a male troop (that whole standards thing is funny in practice).
The Marines had a couple hundred females volunteer for a training experiment, not to serve in the infantry-and speaking of which, are you aware of the conclusions of the study done by the USMC that said that mixed gender units were not as effective as all male units? Jonn wrote about it-http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=61784
Gee, that looks like a way to make your unit more competitive in a deadly contest without changing a thing. Did it occur to you that maybe those MOS’s you mentioned are highly incentivized to try to attract young men (you know, the same ones who are making their football teams more competitive) into doing a dangerous, difficult, physically-demanding job that will likely leave them physically disabled (if they survive). The military has known for a long time that females will suffer leg injuries and stress fractures at a much higher rate than males when subjected to similar physical stresses (Fred Reed provides a pretty good summary-http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml) and that males are far more likely to succeed in physically demanding jobs because of that.
But to hell with all that, gender feminists have an agenda to push and if that means a few more dead bodies on the battlefield, well it’s not like actually defending the country and watching out for the welfare of soldiers is that high on their priority list.
I get that you disagree with me, and I welcome the debate. I actually enjoy it. However, I am not Lars and I’m not going get into trading veiled insults with you. Let’s keep it to the issue. So, about that USMC study… Were the women trained to the same standard as the men or not? On one hand, they attended the same 0300 Infantry training course as the men and graduated, so if they had been men they would have earned the MOS. To me, that proves that there are some women that can meet the USMC infantry standard. I can only assume that there are women that can meet the Army standard (11B OSUT is only 13 weeks long, while USMC Recruit Training alone is 12 weeks long, and Infantry Marines go through an additional 8 week course). Of course, we award MOSs based on individual merit- not comparisons to others or averages. So, regardless of how they did in comparison to the other Marines in the experiment, they met that standard to be Infantry. Unless they weren’t trained to standard- if some concession was made to ensure they graduated from the 0300 course. If that is the case, then the experiment design is flawed because there is no like comparison. Of course integrated squads didn’t do well in comparison to all male squads- the women weren’t trained to standard. Obviously the incentives are there to fill high risk or difficult to fill jobs. I am simply asking why a fully qualified woman shouldn’t be able to compete for the job and the incentive. Of course women are injured at a higher rate. But some men are injured as well. The studies found that overall fitness, lean muscle mass, and stature are the markers, not necessarily gender. In other words, small, weak, and out of shape men get hurt as well. We recruit the hell out of those guys, though. Don’t we care about them?he Army does not currently screen for any of this in recruiting- which is why the Army is instituting a physical test for recruits:… Read more »
I tell you what, you don’t snark at me (“Let me break it to you…”) and I won’t snark back at you.
You dismiss a third possibility with regards to the USMC study-that the females were trained to the same standard, but then failed to preform-as a mixed gender team-to a similar standard as the all male team. After all, I can train midgets to shoot jump shots, rebound and dribble to a certain standard, but they’ll almost certainly lose to a team of even minimally capable guys who are 6’4″.
And again, most of the time the military is a team activity (very rarely an individual one-we have to assess people individually, but it’ how they perform on their team that counts the vat majority of the time in combat). And so, just as with the analogy about building a strong football team (for a low-stakes activity), we want to build a strong team (for an activity with much higher stakes). The purpose of the military is to build that strong team to ensure the national defense-not to cater to the whims (or delusions) of individuals.
The fact that “some men” might get injured is irrelevant. The study shows the rate for males versus females and females are injured at a much higher rate-thus they are less likely to be available (to fill out their team) and so they seem like a less efficient use to training resources and defense dollars.
And regarding “stature” and “lean muscle mass” did you not read this part of the essay that I linked-“The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.” Why do people keep insisting that we go looking for unicorns when we have plenty of horses available?
Gee, the height/mass differential seems to track US general population statistics fairly well – which say that, as a group, women are indeed about 5″ shorter than men, and far smaller and lighter.
In fact, the gender difference in averages seems to be between 1 and 2 standard deviations. That is in turn consistent with the observed difference in muscle mass, upper body strength, lower body strength, and endurance between males and females as a group.
In short: when you’re talking about a statistically average male in terms of physical abilities, you’re talking about a woman who’s easily top 16% – and maybe closer to top 2% – in terms of inherent physical capability.
I’m thinking that poses a problem, demographically speaking, in finding a large enough number of physically qualified females for this to be an effective use of resources.
Oh, so now you have something against midgets (I prefer ‘little people’).
We recruit based on individual entry standards, and we award an MOS and assign to units based on performance in an MOS awarding course.
We don’t bar anyone from enlisting or move them out of an MOS based on their comparison to an average.
We hold people to the individual standard throughout their career. We don’t compare performance until we select for continued service, promotion, or schooling.
In the case of the USMC, there are over 200 women who met those standards. My guess is that there will be a hundred or so women that are interested in Army infantry. As long as they meet the individual standard, they should be allowed to serve.
Some will do well, some will get injured, and some will be selected for continued service and promotion. Some will not. Some will make contributions to their squads, some will not. Just like their male counterparts.
As long as we maintain standards and do not set quotas we will be fine.
You get points for tenacity Red, but nothing you said here really touches the core of my argument.
We have understood for years that males have significant physiological advantages over females in physically demanding jobs and made policy accordingly-no one has made any compelling argument for why we should not continue to do so other than it would be good for the careers of a small number of individuals-and that, compared to the stakes of optimal combat performance, seems like pretty small beer.
You do have to meet certain standards to enlist (which are derived from averages-so that part of your argument isn’t really true).
And while “Some will do well, some will get injured, and some will be selected for continued service and promotion” on average males will have a decided physical advantage, so they will be less likely to get injured and more likely to be selected for promotion-which means that they are a better investment for our defense dollar. And no, I don’t think the social engineers will just let it go at that, they want certain results and will try to manipulate the outcome-YMMV.
What you’re essentially arguing is that because some “little people” might be able to meet some minimal “individual standard” for hoops proficiency that we should run them out there in a game against an opponent where they stakes are whether or not their teammates continue to live or whether or not we get to continue to have a country. I’m going to pass on that and continue to look to the taller demographic for my team.
reddevil – quote was RaynMan above.
‘they will be required, by law, to assure that women are proportionately represented (at least 50.5% at last census).”’
This is the key to there ever being equality in the military and the proportional representation has to be across all MOS’s. One counter-argument I have heard to this is that ‘they only want equality of opportunity.’ In other words, they want to be able to do it if they feel like it. Cherry-pick their equality without the associated responsibility.
Where did you get the above quote? Everything I have heard the CMC and CSA and the Service Secretaries say is that there will be no quotas.
Both the Commandant and the Chief have stated that there will be no lowering of standards, no quotes (min or max), and no forced enlistments into any MOS.
Not sure where everyone is getting the notion that we force people into the infantry, but neither the Army or the Marine Corps does that.
Maybe not now, but as soon as it is decided that women need to be in combat units to help with their career paths or promotion scores then we will start seeing a reduction in the qualifications.
Because isn’t that what started this BS in the first place? Concerns about careers rather than concerns about killing the enemy.
Actually, no, that isn’t what started it. You are attributing the motives of one woman to all women. Why do men join the infantry?
What started it was the recognition that capable women were being unfairly excluded based only on their gender.
That said, it seems that your real issue is that you don’t trust Army and Marine senior leaders to enforce standards.
What about the 240 or so Marine enlisted women that finished 0300 training to standard? Do you think they did it to further their careers?
I agree.
For female Army Officers, it was essential for their career.
They were getting passed over for promotion at higher echelons (Field Grade, mostly) by guys with the Ranger Tab, CIBs, etc.
And now that a few were given it, its a different story. I agree with your comment.
As for the enlisted ranks, I agree with Reddevil’s comment below. Those that passed seemed to have done it on an somewhat even playing filed, unlike their sisters in the Army. However, Reddevil, they did do it to begin AND further their careers. Its tough to stay Infantry forever. Body breaks down. So do it up front.
Make that Reddevil’s comment ABOVE.
That’s exactly what the bitch was about opening Ranger school… promotion eligibility. Tab = points
A forecast I will make is that the number of females voluntarily joining the military will decline when females are involuntarily selected for infantry duty. In the convoluted “logic” of the left, this is perhaps an acceptable result. For them it would prove something. For the sane among us, it would only show the folly of fixin’ what ain’t broke.
I think that male accessions would drop as well if we did that, which is precisely why we won’t do it.
No service currently forces enlisted personnel into any MOS.. We have an all volunteer military, and that includes MOS selection based on qualifications.
I certainly don’t know about every MOS per se, but the command where I work does receive a certain number the the Army ordered into the MOS training every class. It’s a joint command and I don’t see other communities doing it but the Army certainly does.
The Army does not force enlisted Soldiers into any MOS. They may have had limited choices based on their qualifications and the needs of the Army at the time of enlistment, but no service forces enlisted personnel into a given MOS.
Officers sign a contract to be commissioned, and do not always get their branch of choice (technically they do since they are required to list every branch as a choice).
reddevil- Since the military can’t ‘force’ a person to join, I guess technically you are correct that they cannot ‘force’ them into a particular MOS. However, many who join are given jobs not of their choosing, including myself. Granted that things change over time and the Marine Corps no longer offers ‘guarantees’ as they were not worth the paper they were written on.
Go ask a Navy recruiter about enlisting as ‘non-designated’ and find out what that means.
Flunk out of any military school and find out how many MOS options you’ll have.
Red..you’re wrong. I dunno where you get your info, but I’m a DA civilian seeing it real time. Sorry if the reality upsets you.
..and btw the USN sends Corpsmen to Field medical service school NEC8404 all the time without volunteering for it and sends them to follow on assignments with the FMF.
If you’re going to say it’s not involuntary, because they originally enlisted voluntarily…well I can then understand your logic. I disagree with it, but I do understand it.
I’m a DA Civilian as well. Please show me where Soldiers are forced into a specific MOS. That is simply not the policy of any service. Army enlistees select a specific MOS, and other service enlistees select a program or career program for which they are qualified and acknowledge that they will be sent to the MOS that best suits their qualifications and the needs of the service.
-Very specifically, no one in the Army or Marine Corps is forced into the Infantry. The Marines actually have some competition for Infantry slots.
-No service forces any enlisted personnel into an MOS (Occupation). Someone with low scores or enlisting at a bad time may have limited choices, but they can always walk away.
-Everyone but the Army has open contracts, meaning that the enlistee goes to whatever is available (needs of the service) after recruit training. However, they know what the possibilities are and can walk away.
-The Army doesn’t do that, and Infantry Marines actually have to compete for SOI slots based on their performance in Recruit Training.
-Field Medical School is not an MOS, it is an additional qualification.
-Assignments are not MOSs and they are not voluntary (except for Airborne, EOD, and Special Ops in the Army.) You join the Army to be Infantry, you can expect to go to an Infantry unit. You may join the Army to be an admin clerk and be involuntarily assigned to an infantry unit.
I should add that those flunking out of a school do have very few options- most of them bad.
You’re wrong red.
Word.
I must have missed that.
A little off subject, about what percent of
eligible males were drafted in lets say, 1969 or 1968. What percent of eligible males served drafted or volunteered? Where can one find this info.
tks
Any stats you find will be misleading because many men volunteered in order to have some degree of control.
Just wanted to know the percent of eligible who actually served.
Here are what purports to be the number of men drafted by year during the history of US military conscription since the beginning of World War I:
http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72.htm#Induction%20Statistics
The author there purports to have taken these numbers from Selected Service data, but he doesn’t provide a link for verification. His figures plausible, but I don’t know if they’re accurate.
It’s also interesting (to me, at least) that 1966 – not 1968 or 1969 – was the peak year for the Vietnam Era draft.
This table from the Census Bureau gives figures, by age and gender, for October 1968.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/1968/tab01.pdf
Haven’t been able to find the total number (voluntary plus drafted) who entered the military in 1968. If I recall correctly, various sources indicate that the draftee proportion in the US military during Vietnam was between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total US military strength; however, those sources don’t break out the fraction by year or list inductions by year.
However, I did find one interesting thing while looking. Believe it or not, if the following stats are accurate it appears that even at peak strength (1968) the US military during Vietnam was in fact smaller than during the Korean War (1952 and 1953). Only the USMC was larger during Vietnam; the other 3 branches were smaller than they were during Korea. Total US military strength during 1952 and 1953 was larger than the Vietnam Era peak.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm
The guy does cite and link to his source, but it’s a large and non-searchable document; I’ve not verified his numbers. They appear plausible, however, and his source appears to be authoritative.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the info. You sir are an expert at research. Tks again.
Both Rubio and Cruz have come out supporting a bill that would ban the Fedzilla from requiring women to register for the draft.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02/12/cruz-rubio-back-bill-to-keep-obama-from-opening-draft-to-women.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Neither one of these two nitwits did a thing to stop this before it was forced down the Military’s collective throats. And this is their answer to this SJW BS? I hope neither one of them is expecting my vote in the primary or in the general election.
+1. Like.
[…] Mascot The Lonely Conservative: No, Ted Cruz Is Not Attacking Home Schooling This Ain’t Hell: Today’s Shocker – Women Oppose Being Required To Register For The Draft Weasel Zippers: EPA E-Mails Show They Planned To Let Flint Continue Drinking Contaminated Water […]
I will restate a point a made in an earlier thread.
“This would be a great debate question for H. Clinton”.
The Democrats support it (for the most part); Republicans oppose under the same lines (more or less).
If that is the case, I am curious as to what the disenfranchised female voter (18-29 / draft age) thinks about this. One would assume they would vote for Hillary, especially considering her feminist message of equality amongst the sexes. But Sanders has made ground, as we all see, and is cutting into that demographic.
Will H. Clinton support the party line on this or take a stand against the establishment to pick up votes from the aforementioned group?
Any thoughts?
I got the minutes in my official email from a recent SASC meeting about women in SOF. There is a lot of support for maintaining the standards. However, there are definitely politicians that want the women there at all costs including separate standards and quotas.
After 35 years of federal service and current role in training these troops, it’s my opinion that it’s going to happen, any and all evidence or applicability or need be damned.
Promises will be made and promises will be broken.
I didn’t see that in the CSA or CMC testimony to the SASC- everything I saw about standards was the commitment to maintain them and the unwillingness to establish quotas
You didn’t?….what a shock.lol
I watched the testimony and read the transcript. I didn’t see anyone- witnesses or Senators- that advocated lowering standards or setting quotas. Could you give a quote, or even attribute the statement to someone so I could look it up? Seems like a pretty dumb thing for a Senator on the Armed Services Committee to say in public.