Sexism

You stated this as a fact. Provide proof.

You stated this as a fact. Provide proof.

But no, in fact, war spoils have been a part of war since the very beginning. War rape, in particular, has been an unfortunately common form of it.

It's also worth remembering that the combatant-civilian death ratio averages out at roughly fifty-fifty in most armed conflicts, with occasional outliers like the ludicrously brutal Yugoslav conflicts (where it was more like ten-ninety). Being a civilian in wartime really isn't all that much safer, with the biggest killers being disease and famine (because resources get channelled to help support the troops, and because battles and large-scale movements do nightmarish things to farmland).

I wonder what the death rate was like for women as compared to men in occupied territories during WWII. Certainly, the rapes on the Eastern front - by both Germans and Russians are well documented, and if you want a serious horror show of sexual violence you should read Keith Lowe's Savage Continent, which brilliantly documents the plight of women in the immediate aftermath of WWII - but not so the deaths. I would imagine that the death rate for men was significantly higher overall, but I wonder what it does when both men and women were directly exposed - either as combatants or occupied serfs - to WWII

This provides examples of glorification of war and other violence but I never disputed that these exists. The argument was merely over the origins of those attitudes.

I want it to be equal. Nowadays, I see little reason to implement the draft in western nations as any full-scale war is likely to involve nuclear weapons, where numbers matter little. Peace is a matter of survival of the human species right now. But if we had a draft, I want it to be gender-inclusive. Which I have seen very few feminists argue for, so why is that a feminist argument again? In my country, the draft is put on hold but the law is pretty clear on the fact that in case of defence only men will fight.

The number of deaths is irrelevant when my only argument is that they exist and they are a constant throughout the history of war.

And I heard they are frowned upon nowadays, which means, again, that they aren't a constant as death is.

50/50 casualty splits still means that you are more at risk when you are in the group which consists of less than 50% of the population, i.e. the military. And in regards to gender and death in wars, especially regarding the Yugoslav conflicts, you were still more likely to be killed as a man, even as a civilian.

Of course you're more likely to be killed as a man as a civilian. That's because men are considered able-bodied and capable of resisting, while women are considered property to be taken and used as their conquerors see fit. Even the Bible advocates that when you conquer a people, you put the men to death and keep the women for yourself.

War is empowering for men. Even in capture, men are treated as dangerous enemies who could potentially undermine and destroy a conqueror's control of a region, while women are treated as spoils of the war.

edited 19th Feb '14 10:59:58 AM by TobiasDrake

And what does the origin of it have to do with anything?

Er, no. Infantry will always be important in warfare, specifically because nobody wants a nuclear war. Further, in any war, soldiers on the ground are needed to keep a seized area secure, or to implement delicate instructions.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jowh/summary/v017/17.4capozzola.html

http://tinyurl.com/kqmbuvw

So like I said, you're making a feminist argument.

No it isn't. You flat out said "The only constant is death and misery". Being statistically unlikely to die means that death and misery are flat out NOT the "only constants". In fact, it means that statistically, they're an unlikely constant.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:13:18 AM by KingZeal

404 on your second link Zeal, but I kinda doubt he would read it any way, if he is making an argument like that.

Never seen a feminist argue AGAINST drafting women.

He is also looking over that the benifits of military service ARE constant, not a posibility like death.

However he does have one point, there will never be another draft, because fullscale war will never happen agian, if it does, we all die any way since the nukes WILL be deployed, its all border dances now that can easily be handled with the people that sign up wilingly.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:07:36 AM by Imca

Never say never. Who knows how war will develop in the future.

True enough, we cant know for certian, but we can say with reasonable probility that a full scale war will never happen agian due to the significant chance of the human race's extinction.

The cold war kinda exemplifies it, if it were not for the nukes, it would have went hot.... and there were sevral times it almost DID go hot over miss fires of tank shells, and false blips on the radar, neither of which prompted a "Lets mobilize the forces" but instead "Do we hit the red button"

...

Let me repeat that, they almost launched nukes at each-other over a single tank accidentally firing off a tank shell, that hit nothing near the Berlin wall.

Thats how lightly modren countries have to tread. :/

Oh I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, your point only makes me more convinced of how much a Red Herring this whole "the draft negatively affects men" business is.

Link fixed, BTW.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:15:15 AM by KingZeal

Essentially, women have an additional benefit of being held out of military forces, whether they want to or not, namely they aren't killed as often. And you phrase it in such a way that women are still the main victims.

If it isn't important to you, why do you keep asking me about it?

You can get a decent number of soldiers without resorting to the draft. It's mostly then necessary to force people to fight when you need every ressource available. Which would include nuclear weapons. In which case we're all dead, so who cares about the draft?

And that's not just my opinion, the draft has been going out of favour for a while now because people aren't expecting full-scale conflicts in the nuclear era.

You're still more likely to die when you join the military than you are without joining. War is a risk to your health and that is a constant, in stark contrast to anything you guys have come up with.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

They almost did several times, but they never actually did. The reason they never did is because everyone knows about MAD. Anyone powerful enough to set off a nuclear war knows better than to actually do it, because again, MAD. There is no gain in it.

Being taken as a rape slave is a benefit?

Again, all you seem to focus on with military service is the possibility of death, ignoring everything else that comes with the military package. Other men historically haven't had as much of a problem with this because...there really isn't a tactful way to put this, but many men and women exist who are not cowards. There is a possibility of death in everything we do. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow on my way into work.

Possibility of death is only a small part of what it means to be a soldier.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:20:26 AM by TobiasDrake

That was kinda the point of my argument though, that full war is off the table BECAUSE of MAD.

And I have been trying to figure out a way to say your last statment with tact for the past hour, thank you drake for just flat out saying it...

Although my wording would have been more about how they were more concerned with personal advance and had enough ambition to take a risk to claim it, you essentialy said the same.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:19:41 AM by Imca

Only if you count full war as one where nuclear missiles are fired.

If you send infantry into another nation, load them up with military vehicles and the best handheld arms you've got, launch bombing raids of enemy towns, and engage in naval warfare campaigns...how is that not a full war? What is the qualifier that makes nukes necessary for a war to be considered, "full"?

War in which infantry are used is a much more likely prospect in the future than war in which nuclear weapons are fired, so Zeal's point that infantry remain very important is a valid one.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:19:14 AM by TobiasDrake

Who said that? Just explain your point, already.

That isn't the point, though. As I said, IF infantry WAS needed, what would you want the government to do? You're dodging the question now.

What the hell are you even talking about now? You said "the only constants in war are misery and death". Now, you're backpedaling.

Also, based on what was just said about the statistics of war, and the ability to raise your status during war, that means you were more likely to raise your status than not.

Basicly I am counting full scale conflict as the invasion of one world power, by another world power.

Which can not hapen, since when the second world power gets invaded, they ARE going to triger MAD when they begin to lose.

Dying is a benefit? Also, if you had actually read the link you would have found a situation where male civilian were killed en masse and women were escorted towards (relative) safety. So it isn't even a difference between being raped and being killed, there were very well situations where men were killed and women were relatively safe. And that's without going into how war rape affected and affects men, a subject which has to little research for me to comment on. You just mix up a situation which largely affects men negatively (being killed in war) with a situation where women are negatively affected (being raped) and create a different narrative.

I explicitly said, in the post before the one you quoted, that if we had to have a draft, I want it to include both genders. Which, especially in a time where we face a greater threat due to nuclear annihilation than missing reproductive capability, we don't even have any dilemma that we might have had in the past.

What about what I said is contradicting my earlier statements?

This isn't a constant, though. Depending on the situation, you could lose status if you didn't participate in a war instead of gaining it when participating. Which affects your life negatively even if you aren't going into a war that's going on.

So again, you are making the same argument that feminists have made for decades. Great. Now you know.

You changed the focus of your argument from being "war is objectively bad for the participants" to "war is worse than peace".

Except that, again, merely participating was itself a means of increasing your status. Even slaves that were EXCLUSIVELY used for military service still had their status increased merely from the act of going to war. Because, it turns out that forcing people who don't want to fight for you to do so is a terrible long-term military strategy.

Also by the logic of what you call a "constant" (meaning other outcomes were possible) death and misery wasn't a "constant" either, because there were far more likely outcomes.

edited 19th Feb '14 11:48:13 AM by KingZeal

This has moved a bit while I was away from the computer...

Anway, what I wanted to say a few days ago was that when I brought up the Vikings, or rather Scandinavian life during around that time, wasn't to depict them as a "gender-egalitarian society". It wasn't a society where the men brought home spoils of war and their wives took it all, nor was it one where the women only had a token voice in everything.

The vast majority of people in any old culture, Vikings included, were farmers (or fishermen if appropriate). Not warriors. They didn't often travel farther than to the local town. The ones who travelled were often among the slightly richer ones who could afford long expeditions, and people without families who travelled in search for a place to settle down.

Seeing as most were farmers, they all had their jobs to do, according to ability. Everyone worked on the fields. Decisions were made in agreement, based on what was wise. If you live and work together there's no incentive to screw the other over, whichever sex they may be. Most people fight for the family, not within.

What differed were mainly in the education they got from their elders, which defined in what areas they were proficient in making decisions. Generally that meant men held more power in society while women held more power within the household (which consisted of an extended family most of the time). Most of the population were content with that, or there would've been revolutions. Fair for Its Day is probably appropriate here, and as I mentioned, more fair than the culture that followed.

What we see in recorded history is almost entirely from the upper classes. The war culture most associate with the Vikings wasn't as prominent with those who were too poor to afford all the expenses war had. And of the total population, very few actually died in battle. From what I've read, relative to other cultures, wars and battles were even somewhat safe. In field battles, there was often an initial clash, and after that it was usually clear which side had the advantage, so it wasn't uncommon that the battle actually ended there. Field battles in general have historically been far more rare than what history books make them out to be anyway.

By the way, there were Scandinavian, female warriors. Not many, but they existed.

Statistics about who's more likely to die are generally useless as they're presented in threads like these. Statistically we're all more likely to die from a meteor impact than an airplane crash, because of the number of people involved. On the road, you're more likely to crash close to your home, simply because that's where you do the majority of your driving. Britain's soldiers got a lot more reported head injuries when they introduced helmets for obvious reasons. In short, you need to know a lot more than just the numbers to make proper sense of them.

In most modern militaries you never see combat at all, or even have the chance to. It's just that rare. And overall, values are still from where it was far more dangerous to be a soldier. Historically you took a great risk by joining an army, which is one reason you gained a lot of respect for it. "You killed it, you earned it," basically. Nowdays both the risk of dying and the respect is lesser, but the former is reduced more, partially because social constructs are harder to change than practical ones.

Concerning drafting, I think (don't quote me on that) that one reason (of several) that Sweden made drafts voluntary rather than mandatory was because of it being mandatory for men, and voluntary for women. Which led to campaigns to convince people to join, with an emphasis on both sexes.

My main reason why I have problems with calling getting rid of the draft a "feminst argument" is that a) it could be seen as having some sort exclusivity to feminism, meaning other people concerned about the unfairness of the draft get ignored and b) preventing men from getting forcibly into the military was very much a second priority behind getting women in the military voluntarily.

That's... not really changing much? The second is a logical follow-up of the first anyway.

But this depends highly on the society where war is waged. If you lose a war, there often isn't much status to be had. On the other hand, even if your side wins, there will be losses on your side.

For any given conflict, it was more likely for people to die than for soldiers to earn status. In the US, more soldiers returning home died of suicide after their service than soldiers died in the war. I highly doubt they have seen war as an increase in their status.

It doesn't matter what you want to call it. You're making an argument that feminists have been making for years.

So what is your argument? Do you want nobody to go to war forcibly, or just men?

No it isn't. The second isn't an argument relevant to the conversation. Of course war is bad, but that applies even if you arent participating.

The first, however, is something that we're statistically refuting.

Once again, that has nothing to do with the argument you made. Losing a war is bad for everyone, including the noncombatants. So again, why are you backpedalling? If you're arguing that war is objectively worse for the participants than the civilians, please stick to that.

1. Source please.
2. Your argument is incomplete. For this to be true, you have to argue that more soldiers died (or suffered PTSD after service) than those that served and returned well-adjusted.

Duck:

That doesn't make the statistics "pointless", since his exact argument is that being a soldier was objectively a bad thing.

edited 19th Feb '14 1:28:31 PM by KingZeal

That's a statement I can live more with. I might seem pedantic on this but some feminists making some statements that others have done before and after them doesn't make it a feminist argument to me.

Is forcing only women into service even an option considered by anyone? For the most part, this is an argument to keep men out of forcible military service because, as far as I've seen, women are only at risk and only to a smaller degree if men are.

You mean the statistics showing how regular wars today have a higher likelyhood for a soldier to die than a civilian? Yeah, you're really ripping my argument to pieces.

Not really. You're argument is that soldiers gain more or at least as much as they lose. For this apply for this particular war, more soldiers would have to be better off after the war than at least the suicide victims and battlefield casualties.

But that's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying death and misery has been a constant for every war, for every side. How can gain of status be as constant as that?

Edit:

You're strawmanning here. I wasn't saying that war is objectively worse for soldiers (it's incredibly hard if not impossible to measure abstract concepts such as status and death), I was saying for soldiers in war death is a certainty, while gains of status aren't. Simple example: soldiers who lose a war will likely not see any advantages out of it. Counter-example: soldiers who win a war are still confronted with death.

edited 19th Feb '14 2:54:23 PM by Mastah

In this case, you can't prove that something is objectively bad with statistics, unless you have a complete set of them, which would include any and all relevant factors. If you set aside that I think "objectively bad" is an oxymoron.

edited 19th Feb '14 3:17:48 PM by AnotherDuck

So I ask again, then: what was your point in bringing up the draft in the first place?

That's not answering my question, but let me rephrase it anyway:

You said that women being allowed to enter service voluntarily is a "second priority" over ending forcible conscription.

My question is: why? You've been saying for a while now that conscription not only isn't necessary but isn't really even used anymore. But women being barred from conscription (or combat in general) is an ongoing and active problem in many parts of the world. So my question is: why is conscription your bigger priority?

Where did those statistics get posted? Also, the last I checked, the casualties of the Iraq War were more numerous for civilians than soldiers. However, if you know another war where that isn't the case, please cite it.

But anyway, no. Those weren't the statistics I was talking about.

I was talking about the statistics which indicate that out of the 112,000 troops deployed in Iraq, only 4,487 have died. Further, suffers of PTSD (which leads to the suicides you mentioned) are about 20 percent. So, combined, you have a 1 in 4 chance of going into the war and either dying or developing PTSD. Although those numbers increase if you receive multiple tours in a short amount of time, it's still a definite minority.

But let's say your argument is that soldiers in the Iraq War weren't drafted, and it isn't a "total war" like World War II. In that case, the highest percentage of deaths were the Germans who lost 30% of their troops, which is still a minority. And although PTSD is difficult to track for WWII because it wasn't a very well-researched condition, About 1 in 20 (or 5%) of American troops are estimated to have had it.

But let's say your argument is that this is still different from the Vikings (who are the ones that started this argument), well in that case, during the Battle of Hastings, one of the biggest battles of the Viking Invasion of England, it's estimated that less than one in four soldiers died, and apparently, that's a greatly exaggerated number.

So basically, you were statistically unlikely to die in combat, or endure PTSD during war.

I'm answering these together because they're both the same fallacy.

Again, where are you getting this from? I just provided hard numbers showing that death was NOT "a certainty" for the vast majority of soldiers in three different armed conflicts, from three different eras. However, as I also showed you earlier, even societies where soldiers were freaking slaves, your status was instantly raised when you joined the military.

And again, your point of "if they lose they get no benefit" still has no point. No one gets any benefit from losing a war—except maybe whoever was The Quisling.

I get the feeling you two aren't reading the statistics the same way. For instance, a modern soldier doesn't fight as many wars as a historical one, if any. There's been a lot of wars and battles in Europe over the centuries. So, a quote like, "...for soldiers in war death is a certainty..." doesn't really indicate if it's over a single battle, a war, or military career. Certainly, the longer you were a soldier the higher your risk of dying in battle was. And if you fought and fought, you would likely die. If not in actual battle, in marches between battles. If you got enough experience, and got recognition for it, you got a higher rank. It's like that in any job, and the higher the turnover rate, the faster it goes.

Overall, being a soldier hasn't been a fast-track to fame and fortune. Neither has it been a death trap.