Chickenhawk Hall of Shame

[NovaKart]

I dodged my country's required military service.

Technically I was exempt, since I was attending university on another continent, but .. details got lost in the bureaucracy.

I can't think of many scenarios under which I would actually join up and become a soldier.

Well, as long as you don't get on a soapbox and say Poland should attack another country that's perfectly fine.

 

[warpus]

Well, as long as you don't get on a soapbox and say Poland should attack another country that's perfectly fine.

I think Poland should invade Kurdistan.

 

[classical_hero]

I think Poland should invade Kurdistan.

Awesome. Poland is now part of the Middle East.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In the dream, though, women were being drafted—as they would in the event we actually have a draft again.

This isn't quite correct, in the present state of affairs. Young men have to register with selective service, and stay registered from age 18 to 25, but young women don't. If we needed suddenly to call people up, I think it would be our young men. In such a crisis, you're not then going to suddenly have women register too.

This prompts a question that had never occurred to me. Now that we've become so egalitarian about women serving in the military, why haven't we extended that requirement for selective service registration to women as well?

(And why hasn't it come up in any of CFC:OT's MRA-driven debates about institutionalized sexism disfavorable to men?)

I regard myself as just having lucked out of military service, by our not having a war that required a draft for the seven years I was on tap. So I'm not sure I'm any better than any of the people on the OP's list who "dodged" military service, whatever that means in each of their cases. I thought about getting conscientious objector status, but never bothered to pull together the file.

(When Army recruiters called during my senior year of high school, I told them I was going to college. When they asked me what I was going to study, I told them "peace studies." Ended the calls real quick. It wasn't entirely a lie, though in the end, I didn't major in peace studies; I looked into it, but it was a very disorganized program at my college. But I was pretty pacifistic back then, so I think I could legitimately have substantiated C.O status.)

 

[NovaKart]

I think Poland should invade Kurdistan.

Oh no! A war on two fronts.

This isn't quite correct, in the present state of affairs. Young men have to register with selective service, and stay registered from age 18 to 25, but young women don't. If we needed suddenly to call people up, I think it would be our young men. In such a crisis, you're not then going to suddenly have women register too.

This prompts a question that had never occurred to me. Now that we've become so egalitarian about women serving in the military, why haven't we extended that requirement for selective service registration to women as well?

(And why hasn't it come up in any of CFC:OT's MRA-driven debates about institutionalized sexism disfavorable to men?)

I regard myself as just having lucked out of military service, by our not having a war that required a draft for the seven years I was on tap. So I'm not sure I'm any better than any of the people on the OP's list who "dodged" military service, whatever that means in each of their cases. I thought about getting conscientious objector status, but never bothered to pull together the file.

(When Army recruiters called during my senior year of high school, I told them I was going to college. When they asked me what I was going to study, I told them "peace studies." Ended the calls real quick. It wasn't entirely a lie, though in the end, I didn't major in peace studies; I looked into it, but it was a very disorganized program at my college. But I was pretty pacifistic back then, so I think I could legitimately have substantiated C.O status.)

I've often wondered about that too. I think the draft is something that people just don't want to discuss because it hasn't been implemented in about 40 years. People are still wary of women in combat, particularly if that is something forced. However, women could do an alternative service like women did in the UK in WWII or just not be put in high risk combat positions.

This legalized discrimination against men really stands out to me when I hear about women protesting for the right to go topless in public. If they want to fight against such a commonly accepted double standard, why are they so silent about selective service?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I had a dream about a month ago that WW3 had started and there was a total draft. Everything looked like WW2 footage. In the dream, though, women were being drafted—as they would in the event we actually have a draft again.

As such one of my female friends was drafted in the dream, and in the dream I was angry thinking about how much being drafted could permanently break some people. Especially those in their teens and early 20s.

My distaste for a draft has gone from intellectual to quite visceral.

This isn't quite correct, in the present state of affairs. Young men have to register with selective service, and stay registered from age 18 to 25, but young women don't. If we needed suddenly to call people up, I think it would be our young men. In such a crisis, you're not then going to suddenly have women register too.

This prompts a question that had never occurred to me. Now that we've become so egalitarian about women serving in the military, why haven't we extended that requirement for selective service registration to women as well?

This.

There have been attempts to include women in the draft registry but they are all shot down by conservatives who can't stand to put women in harm's way for patriarchal reasons. These are the same types that have fought allowing women volunteers into 'active combat' roles in the armed forces despite the fact that on today's battlefield environment, everyone is a potential active combatant.

Anywhoo, it's a bit of a moot point considering what a horrendous mess the US draft registry is. They don't actually keep tabs on people when they move (you have to self-report and hardly anyone does), they don't enforce the law and it's basically just a waste of taxpayer money to even keep the list going at this point. The only real enforcement mechanism they have is that you have to state if you are registered or not to get federal student loans and to beat that 'check' you simply have to check yes on a checkbox, whether you are registered or nor (because no one follows up).

I'm not sure it's fair to count Mitt in there too, to be honest.

Why is that? Just curious.

 

[kramerfan86]

There is no justifiable reason women are not in the draft for at very least non-combat positions. Then again there is no justifiable reason for legalized involuntary servitude in the first place really. I doubt we ever have a legitimate draft again but the fact the decayed infrastructure still exists at all is disgusting.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There is no justifiable reason women are not in the draft for at very least non-combat positions. Then again there is no justifiable reason for legalized involuntary servitude in the first place really. I doubt we ever have a legitimate draft again but the fact the decayed infrastructure still exists at all is disgusting.

I would agree wholeheartedly. I would reserve that there would be extraordinary circumstances where a draft would be needed but they are so damn remote that they don't justify maintaining a permanent draft registry.

 

[kramerfan86]

I would agree wholeheartedly. I would reserve that there would be extraordinary circumstances where a draft would be needed but they are so damn remote that they don't justify maintaining a permanent draft registry.

Agree if there is a genocidal war machine heading for your border like WWII Germany I can see justifying it, but that is not a threat I forsee happening to most countries any time soon and if the situation is truly that dire than by what metric can you logically leave 50% of the population out of it?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You pretty much echo my thoughts exactly.

The conservatives in the US simply won't play ball with women draftees for no better reason than it offends their sensibilities about the role of men and women in society. But if there were a need for a draft, there isn't a logical reason to exempt women.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Military veterans in the US recognize that while there is no place for gender roles in society there isn't a better option than gender roles in the military.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They said something similar about teh Gayz until recently.

 

[kramerfan86]

Oddly it seems like the rare times the draft comes up its the liberal end of the US political spectrum that brings it up because their naively claim it would put less of a burden on the lower classes to fight wars.

Overall though thank goodness its a concept that has basically died out at this point.

 

[kramerfan86]

Military veterans in the US recognize that while there is no place for gender roles in society there isn't a better option than gender roles in the military.

Even if you want to argue for gender 'roles' that is still different than the current hypothetical draft system where it is role for one gender and no roles at all for the other.

And say what you will about their actions but Israel is widely considered one of the better armies in the world and they seem to have no problem with integrating women fully into their military.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oddly it seems like the rare times the draft comes up its the liberal end of the US political spectrum that brings it up because their naively claim it would put less of a burden on the lower classes to fight wars.

Overall though thank goodness its a concept that has basically died out at this point.

To be fair though, the current draft law states that all male of age would be eligible for draft and there are no deferments available for education. This would gut the Vietnam-era draft dodging tactic of rich kids going to college (which at the time was even more economically exclusive than today) just to dodge the draft.

So theoretically, it would in fact level the socioeconomic playing field though I suspect the rich would find plenty of ways around it.

 

[NovaKart]

If it did come back it would be interesting to see feminists' reaction to it. Would they suggest women be included? They'd have to really tread carefully to not come across as total hypocrites. Then again, there are European countries that are praised as egalitarian that still require it for men only.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They said something similar about teh Gayz until recently.

Difference being that when they said it about gays it was based on nonsense. When they say that putting prime breeding age men and women together in high stress environments leads inevitably to distractions that reduce performance it is based on very basic biology, and demonstrated experientially to pretty much everyone's satisfaction in plenty of situations where life and death is not at stake.

I can sit in a college class and be distracted by pheromones without any serious costs. If I am riding heard on a nuclear reactor that is doubling power output every ten seconds...not so much.

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand. Heterosexual men would be distracted by the presence of women. But gay men aren't distracted by the presence of men (some of whom must surely be distracting material)?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't understand. Heterosexual men would be distracted by the presence of women. But gay men aren't distracted by the presence of men (some of whom must surely be distracting material)?

And heterosexual women are distracted by the presence of men. Are gay men distracted by the presence of men? I assume so.

There's a big difference between having the occasional distracted person among your crew and intentionally introducing a situation which will distract them all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And heterosexual women are distracted by the presence of men. Are gay men distracted by the presence of men? I assume so.

There's a big difference between having the occasional distracted person among your crew and intentionally introducing a situation which will distract them all.

You're assuming somehow that women would be less numerous or more able to control their sexual urges than gay men in the military?