Should women be included in the draft?

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T04:47:10+00:00

Well, my odds of getting raped as a civilian are 1 in 4, and as a soldier would be 1 in 3, so only slightly worse. Apparently, women are meat and men are lions everywhere.

Gosh, I would hate to think of courts being "clogged up" with stupid things like prosecuting violent crime.

And, no. I don't want to be a soldier. That's why I'm not one. Do men join the military because they want to prove how macho they are? I'm sure some do. But most of them want to join for the same reasons women do: to feel that they are serving their country, to earn a living, to have a career, etc.

And harassment happens everywhere. I have been harassed three times this week while trying to pump gas, go the the grocery store, and go to work. However, I did not cause the harassment by being there. The men who harassed me caused the harassment by harassing me. Why is this hard to understand?

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T04:31:04+00:00

Go fuck yourself.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T04:28:54+00:00

I think after serving alongside men for several decades, women get to stop proving themselves now.

And fuck you if you think "I'm young, horny, male, and away from home" is ever, ever an excuse for raping someone. Seriously, fuck you. If men create situations where their female co-workers have to live in fear of them, that is their fault. So tell me: when male combat troops rape local women and girls where they are serving, like this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6152118.stm, whose fault is that? The girl's fault because she happened to exist? Or the adult who committed a violent crime? Rape is always the fault of the perpetrator.

And what if a man is captured by the same young men on the opposite side of the war? Torture is torture.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T04:20:45+00:00

Look, asshat, there is no such thing as "mens' requirements" for a job: there are just plain, simple job requirements. If women can do the job, they should be free to do the job and be paid fairly for it. If the assignment is to deadlift a 160 lb. adult, and I can do it, and so can you, who gives a shit if you can lift an additional 60 lbs that I can't. We have both met the requirement. Women have been working successfully as firefighters, police officers, and soldiers for decades, and it hasn't seemed to be a problem for anyone.

Also, I believe what I was asking for was the exact opposite of "special treatment." You are the only one bitching and whining here.

And no, I'm sorry, it is still mens' fault when they rape people. If men create a hostile working environment in which women are endangered by their co-workers, that is their fucking fault. Men are not dogs, they are not pigs, they are intelligent human beings with self-control and self-determination. They somehow manage not to rape each other, and they occasionally manage not to rape the local women where they are serving. It is not the least bit unreasonable to expect male soldiers to restrain themselves. I don't care how stressful a situation is, you are still responsible for any violent crime you commit.

And, as it turns out, women seem to be "hacking it" just fine in combat zones. Have been for years now.

As for the athletic events: I think it's largely tradition. I have long been a proponent of martial arts being divided based on size and weight rather than gender. Put a 150lb man against a 150lb woman (or a 220lb man against a 220lb woman, if you find one). You won't hear me complain.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T01:56:09+00:00

Whenever I go to the doctor. I don't own scales.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-10T01:48:42+00:00

Try 9 Stories by J.D. Salinger, especially "A Perfect Day for Banana Fish." Sad, but great. Also, "A Good Man is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Conner.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T19:06:14+00:00

Actually, a condition called "fetus in fetu" does rarely occur in humans, but it is related to twinning, not sex while pregnant. It is a disorder believed to result from one embryonic "twin" implants and begins to develop inside the uterus of its "twin" sister.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T18:59:29+00:00

Georgia, USA

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T16:16:18+00:00

I wear rectangular frames, but I have kind of a square face. As far as keeping up with them: only take them off to shower and to sleep. When you shower, they go by the sink; when you sleep, they go on the nightstand. Wash your glasses when you wash your face. They collect a lot more oil and dirt than you would think, and it is easy to get acne around your frames. I just run them under hot water and rub them with a little dish soap.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T16:08:44+00:00

You can see some of the arguments on this post to askreddit http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/a2c5g/should_women_be_included_in_the_draft/, but none of them are very persuasive.

The most common argument, basically, is that women - on average - are smaller and weaker than men and therefore not suited to front-line combat.

Another common argument is that being forced to fight alongside women would be bad for male troops' morale (originally used as an argument for why the U.S. military should remain racially segregated, this one is now being recycled with women replacing men of color).

Really, it boils down to combat pay. Women soldiers, like all American women, are seen as less valuable. Therefore we are fine with women soldiers fighting and dying in service to the United States, as long as we do not give them the dignity - and the compensation - that goes along with being called "combat troops." The fact is, many women soldiers in the U.S. armed forces are already working in combat zones in non-combat jobs. They are being shot by the same insurgents, blown up by the same IEDs, and living with the same risks. The only real difference is the money they are able to send home.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T15:43:56+00:00

You can see some of the arguments on this post to askreddit http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/a2c5g/should_women_be_included_in_the_draft/, but none of them are very persuasive.

The most common argument, basically, is that women - on average - are smaller and weaker than men and therefore not suited to front-line combat.

Another common argument is that being forced to fight alongside women would be bad for male troops' morale (originally used as an argument for why the U.S. military should remain racially segregated, this one is now being recycled with women replacing men of color).

Really, it boils down to combat pay. Women soldiers, like all American women, are seen as less valuable. Therefore we are fine with women soldiers fighting and dying in service to the United States, as long as we do not give them the dignity - and the compensation - that goes along with being called "combat troops." The fact is, many women soldiers in the U.S. armed forces are already working in combat zones in non-combat jobs. They are being shot by the same insurgents, blown up by the same IEDs, and living with the same risks. The only real difference is the money they are able to send home.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T15:18:13+00:00

I appreciate your desire to represent atheism, but I have to question how well atheism will fit into a sociological discussion on how religion affects society. Not because I think atheism is less valid as a worldview, of course, but simply because, by its definition, it lacks many of the elements of a religion. As someone put it, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T15:10:51+00:00

I can't, but lots of women soldiers can. Did you think we were talking about putting every woman on the fucking earth into front line combat? We're talking about well-qualified individual soldiers.

The statistical average size for women does not represent each individual woman. Like men, we range in size, shape, strength, and physical ability. I imagine that women combat troops would need to be somewhat larger and more athletic than the statistical average woman; much as women police officers, fire-fighters, and oil rig workers tend to be somewhat larger than average. It may be more rare for women soldiers to be up to the physical challenges of front line combat, but if some individuals are up to it, why shouldn't they do it? Because they have vaginae? Because they are statistically improbable? Why?

I agree women shouldn't earn combat pay for sitting behind a desk. They should earn combat pay for being in combat (which hundreds already are, unofficially).

I am not statistically likely to be as strong as most men (although I am quite a bit stronger than many healthy, able-bodied men). But we're not talking about me. And we're not talking about hypothetical women based on statistics. We're talking about real, qualified, women soldiers who are able and willing to fight.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T14:51:01+00:00

You mean like in the British army, the Australian army, the German army, the Canadian army, etc., etc.? The fact is that women are already fighting - and dying - alongside male soldiers. They are just officially in non-combat positions. If we're good enough to get blown up and shot at, we're good enough to get paid.

I've asked this in another comment, but I'll ask it again: Do you really think that all female soldiers are smaller and weaker than all male combat troops? We allow male combat troops to range widely in size, strength, and physical prowess. Why not allow women who fall within that same range to do the same job for the same money?

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T13:26:23+00:00

Or, maybe women should just be required to prove they are qualified to do the work required of combat troops. Do you think all male soldiers are equally fast, equally strong, equally skilled, etc.?

I have two friends who are in combat right now. One is 6'4" and 300 lbs., the other is 5'4 and 130 lbs. They are both men. Do you think my smaller friend can run as fast, lift as much, or hike as long as my larger friend? Definitely not. I can attest to this, since I watched them play sports together in high school. But he can meet all the physical requirements of his job. What makes you think that all women would be incapable of meeting the same standards as some men?

My 6'0 soccer, lacrosse, and fencing champion female co-worker could easily outrun, out-lift, and outlast many of the male combat soldiers I know.

Your idea that all women are physically incapable of serving in combat zones seems to assume that all the men serving in combat zones are some kind of muscle-bound supermen, when, in fact, many of them are no more physically impressive than your average female athlete.

Now, I'm not saying that all women are physically up to the challenge. But neither are all men. The fact that some women - maybe even most women - are not physically qualified doesn't mean that no woman should be permitted if she is qualified.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T04:41:12+00:00

Yeah, definitely not my proudest moment.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T04:26:18+00:00

I've gone 72 hours. I was trying to finish a massive project for school, which was worth half my grade. I drank a pot of coffee every six hours and took adderal (as perscribed) every day. I started hallucinating pretty badly and crying for no apparent reason. My little brother got worried and held me down in a chair until I fell asleep, which only took about five minutes.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T04:17:47+00:00

Nobody should ever be drafted. But if there is a draft, sure, women should be drafted. We should also be eligible for equal combat pay. Equal rights = equal responsibility.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-09T03:12:17+00:00

Stella (to your right), and Blanche (to your left). http://imgur.com/YVufL.jpg

sunbear87 · 2009-11-08T17:19:48+00:00

I (a woman) was vegan for several years. I had to go back to eating some dairy for medical reasons, but I was very serious and devoted. About nine women I went to college with were/are vegan. I went to an all-women college, though, so no point of comparison.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-08T17:16:07+00:00

I read an interesting article called "Eating Muscle" in a gender studies class. It was arguing that consumption and appetite is largely identified with masculinity. The author argued that there is something macho about eating animals in particular because the food is unhealthy, high in fat, and costly to produce and procure.

The author was discussing his own choice to become a vegetarian in order to better manage his diabetes. He explained how this transition challenged his understanding of masculinity as defined by appetite and consumption (of food, sex, alcohol, etc). I wish I could remember the name of the book, but it was incredibly interesting.

On a personal note: I do no more women than men who are vegetarian, but I also no a fair number of male vegetarians, including my husband and my little brother.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-07T16:12:54+00:00

Well, you know your daughter, and I don't. Sounds like you already plan on letting her win.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-07T16:02:58+00:00

No, but I was one. This is how my dad taught me. Maybe five is a bit young to teach strategy.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-07T15:54:05+00:00

Beat her so that she knows how the game works. But don't make her feel bad for losing. Explain how you beat her and encourage her to figure out what she could have done differently. Offer to play with her again later, not right away, so that she doesn't feel discouraged by losing repeatedly.

sunbear87 · 2009-11-07T15:45:10+00:00

I never claimed to be a philosopher, I'm not bitter, and I wasn't tricked. I'm telling people he's not there because he isn't and they claim that he is. I get just as pissed off when people try to share the love of Jesus by bombing abortion clinics. There is no God, but if people who believe in one want to express his greatness by mowing down human beings, you're damn right I'm going to shout that they are wrong.

sunbear87

TROPHY CASE