Celsus

Thanks Rufus.

I still don't understand what equality for those volunteering to be in the army has to do with Selective Service though.

Joel

Bloop

This issue has been debated over here as well. The system in Sweden is supposed to work like this:

The year you turn 18 you go to a mandatory test where you test your physical and mental abilities (test bike, IQ test, that sort of thing). The results then is used to find a suitable spot in the National Service where you do 7.5, 10 or 15 months. If you are interested in some of the special treats that they offer, special forces, MPs or Interpreters, you apply those separately.

This if you are male. Females interested in joining can volunteer to do so and do the test and then it goes as for the men from there. When I was in for 10 months we had one girl on our platoon. Not many girls volunteer.

These days we have scaled down on the military in Sweden and most people don't have to do National Service at all. 15 years ago it was something all men had to to unless you had a really good reason not to.

In the interest of equality, why not simply request of all 18-year-olds regardless of sex to take the test and then pick those most appropriate for service. Realistically there will be some spots were women would not end up. The tank scenario in one of the above posts for instance.

In many places physical abilities matters little. I still haven't heard a good reason why the system should not change.

Derec

Because gender equality is not a bufet (pick and choose). It is pretty hypocritical to demand gender equality where women would be benefiting from it but to be against it if they would be not.

UMoC

Koiyotnik

I know this is mainly concerns the US army, but what about countries that don't have conscription, like Canada?

Celsus

From my earlier post, I wrote:

• The duties/rights conflation begs the question on whether a duty is "just" or "fair" in the first place, and hence, should be treated separately.

I haven't seen a counter-argument to this point. UMoC essentially repeats the conflation between equal duties and rights. Firstly, the freedom to fight in combat is hardly picking and choosing from a "bufet" [sic]. It merely removes institutional hindrances to women, and rather than benefitting them, puts them at greater risk.

Secondly, this group are those who have actively volunteered to serve in the armed forces. The morality of national service/conscription for people, male or female, who would not otherwise have anything to do with the military, is an entirely different matter. I can only wonder why "women" must be lumped together as a single group for this argument. Can't they be reasonably separated as volunteers and (potential) conscripts?

From the point of view of someone, say a feminist, who perceives conscription as unjust (but I prefer the idea of distinguishing it as stated above): equality takes second place to something that is perceived as institutionally unjust. If an institutional mechanism is perceived as unjust, why should any person fight for equal application of injustice? [Note that, if the person does not find SS and the draft to be unjust, then obviously that critique first stated and qualified by Rufus applies.] At this point, I hope it's clear that we have a separate issue that needs to be treated separately.

Anyway, the illogic that somehow appeals for equality on one front are "hollow" because of inequality on another, questionable front (and applying to different sets of people), rings hollow to me.

Joel

Psycho Economist

I'll agree with general sentiments on the board: I won't argue with anyone who gives informed consent to go into combat or combat support roles.

But let me say it again:

Informed. I don't care whether a recruiter meets his quota and keeps his cushy office job or not, when someone joins the military they go where the military needs them and it borders on fradulent misrepresentation on the part of recruiters and instructors for them not to make explicit that torture, including sexual sadism is a possible consequence of being captured by enemy forces.

But I'll also not blame recruiters and instructors when some 18-year old is guilty of selective listening or thinks himself or herself invulnerable.

Consent. I don't think women ought to be ordered willy-nilly onto the front line for having enlisted. That is a a double standard: yes. But we ought to ease into it... female recruits elligible for assignment to more and more MOS's over time, likely including combat roles eventually, with assignemnts contingent on the policy at original enlistment or commission date.

I think a gradual approach is especially important to retain female NCO's and officers as role models for future female recruits. Anything that could make those numbers drop off suddenly would be bad, m'kay.

RufusAtticus

Then I guess that such hypocricy couldn't exist.

RufusAtticus

Then why don't the "feminists" make eliminating conscription one of their issues along with combat? Sure when pressed they might say it is, but are they activists towards it? I think Feather hit the nail on the head. In this instance "feminists" do want equal opportunity without equal responsibility. (I will be happy to be proved wrong with some relevant links.)

southernhybrid

There are two schools of feminist thought regarding military conscription. During the 60s, most of us were strongly and actively opposed to the draft for men as well as women. Today's liberal feminists are in favor of including women in the selective service process. They consider the exclusion of women to be discriminatory toward women.

http://www.psu.edu/womensstudies/492papers/gustafson.pdf

happyboy

why shouldn't women be able to fight alongside their male counterparts? they joined up, so let them fight.

happyboy