I mean, I guess that's good? I'd prefer if we just ditched that registration entirely, but this is the second best option.

eh...

Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PM

eh...

Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?

Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.

I know.
That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:11:04 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PM

eh...

Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?

Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.

I know.
That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.

True, but somebody had to be first

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:16:46 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:11:04 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PM

eh...

Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?

Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.

I know.
That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.

True, but somebody had to be first

Also true
But my point was more so that (to the most of my knowledge) there isn't a full female integration of the 11,18,19,and 12 series yet. Shouldn't that come first?

Gotta start somewhere. Ranger School is an easy test case. Everything's controlled and the standards are already established. It's hard enough that it's respected, yet no structural changes need to be made. They passed, and went home to their units.

>forcing women to get raped

Quote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM

>forcing women to get raped

Are you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.

If women got selected for service, they'd be forced to go to a place where sexual assault rates are something like 1 in 3.

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 03:01:16 PM

Quote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM

>forcing women to get raped

Are you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.

If women got selected for service, they'd be forced to go to a place where sexual assault rates are something like 1 in 3.

What's your point?

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 03:26:28 PM

I'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option".

What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.

You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.

morgan_freeman_pointing.png

Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?

Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:38:43 PM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 13, 2015, 03:36:26 PM

Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?

Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.

I wasn't sure if anyone was arguing for them to be in combat roles or not that's why I thew that out there. I don't have a problem with non combat roles being filled by women.

On that topic I really am unsure about  that "men can't be cohesive" meme. Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women isn't real sound, because units are fine being cohesive as they are now, when people form incredibly strong friendships and bonds with their comrades. You don't think people feel those same needs to save someone when it's their friend out there dying? Soldiers are plenty capable of rationalizing in that situation, and if some will inevitably break, well, some already inevitably break for essentially the same reason.

But that's just my hypothesis.

And if facts prove me wrong, I can only express my disappointment in soldiers' self control.

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PM

Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women

...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?

Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.

Quote from: Mad Max on October 13, 2015, 03:46:15 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PM

Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women

...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?

Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.

When asked why they reenlisted, the majority of soldiers responded that they were returning to protect their friends in their unit.