~ archived since 2018 ~

Military draft and 7% gap

WomenMustServeInArmy

March 2, 2017

9 upvotes

Some people say, that women should not serve in an army. I totally disagree with them. But today only men are being drafted, so if (big) war happens, then they would be conscripted. I have a question. Do men have to be draft listed for free, or they should receive money for that? If second, then what amount of money should it be? Big money, very big money, moderate or small money?

Some people say, that there is 7% gap between men's wage and women's wage. Some disagree with that. But if we imagine, that that gap really exists, then wouldn't military draft obligation cover that 7% gap? I'm sure it will, and for being listed for a draft men should get much more then 7% wage bonus.

So, all feminist's whine about that gap has totally no sense, until women would be available for military draft.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the mission

TheRedArchive exists so that this writing cannot quietly disappear. Deleted accounts, banned subreddits, blogs long since offline — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

Preserving it is not free. The servers, the storage and the bandwidth come out of my own pocket, and the bill grows every month the archive does.

If you believe this record should still be here for whoever comes looking in twenty years, you can help keep it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Military draft and 7% gap
Author	WomenMustServeInArmy
Upvotes	9
Comments	42
Date	March 2, 2017 4:12 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5x13l7/military_draft_and_7_gap/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/military-draft-and-7-gap.930700 https://theredarchive.com/post/930700

Comments

[–]TechReader01 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TechReader01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What disadvantage do women have in infantry? Stamina of women is on par with men (after some training), and they have enough strength to carry a rifle. Modern light materials for weapon and equipment make that even easier. But i want to speak about other countries. Do sides involved in, for example, Syrian conflict use compulsory conscription? How many men are affected by that? I heard a story about women which escaped from Syria and she told, that her lover could not go away with her. So i think that in the parts of world where are going military conflicts many men are hardly discriminated by their gender. And we should check it out and force the organizations involved in such a gender discrimination to stop compulsory conscription of men or to conscript women on par with men. BUT while in other countries there are no wars - it can happen. Even in EU, what about WW3? If it will happen, would be men forced to serve in army or clear the territory after nuclear contamination, while women will not? Women should serve or work on par with men.

Compulsory conscription of men and the absence of conscription for women (discrimination) exists in following EU countries (data from free sources - mby outdated): Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Switzerland. And thats EU only. There are much more countries around the world where men are discriminated. And other EU countries have compulsory conscription laws for war situation (draft), which are discriminating men too. So even if USA can have no conscription if we watch all over the world - the discrimination of men by gender is massive. Not all countries can get rid of compulsory conscription at all, so we must stop gender discrimination, by forcing conscription or draft for women.

[–]68696c6c 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TechReader01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Answer to that question is very simple. If there is no chance that draft ever would be applied, then why aren't women available for a draft? And if sometimes an emergency situation will happen, there would be no time for men to apply that women should be drafted too (obviously if something urgent happens then there is no time to change something).

But, anyway, even if chance of being drafted is low, the citizens which are available for a draft should not be doing it for free. They should get some compensation for it. And 1.5% or 7% wage increase for that - is not too much. So, feminists should have no complain about wage difference of men and women (if it exists) until women would be available for a draft.

While USA has stong army, there is no need for a draft in the near future. But let's look at other countries - some are in war and compulsory conscript citizens, some are in peacetime, but conscript men for a compulsory one year military service (that happens even in EU). All these countries are watching at USA, and if USA doesn't apply women for a draft these countries think that they can discriminate men too. So, applying women for a draft is very important for all men and gender equality over the world .

[–]feedmecarrots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

That problem lies in social education. Boys are not educated to stay safe and to treat themselves as important as girls. But if problem exists, then women should fight in squads where serve mostly women. Or to mix them with men who are psychologically selfish and don't put themselves in danger. If women can't take action in combat then their civil rights should be cut by some degree and they have to get other hard obligations, or men should be forced to psychologically train to not risk to save a women (or to receive severe punishment for such a risk). BUT i think that the reports about men putting themselves in danger to save a women are partially falsified, or are not scientifically proven (for example men and women had too little time in combat situations, or men had no proper combat training).

[–]feedmecarrots 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many men, who don't train, have weak upper body too.

While still having a stronger upper body than women who also don't train

And if upper body strength is needed - then it can be easily achieved by several months training. Women waste much time for ass and leg training (and achieve progress better then most men), there is no problem if they focus on the upper body if needed.

No. Send your average man and your average women into the gym 3 times a week with the same workout. The man will soon outperform the woman, lifting heavier, guaranteed. Men and women have a different ceiling when it comes to physical ability. We see this constantly when comparing male and female professional athletes. The male sprinters are faster, the male weightlifters are stronger, the male spear throwers throw further, the male long jumpers jump further, etc.

Also women have stronger lower-body which is essential for infantry movement.

No. Find me a women who can squat or deadlift like a man. THAT is lower body. Hell, I can only squat around 200 lb and that is more than pretty much all the women who hit the gym at the regular. And we have some pretty jacked women at our gym, I can tell you that.

What do you actually mean by 'infantry movement'? Just infantry moving around and about? Yeah, we men are better at that as well. Run faster for longer, that's what a man in shape, and trust me the military WILL whip you into shape, do.

Upper body strength is most definitely need to haul heavy equipment around without collapsing like a sack of potatoes. Soldiers don't just carry assault rifles, they also carry MGs, RPGs, explosives, first aid equipment, munitions, etc. And to get your buddy who's been hit into safety. Because the military absolutely expects you to look out for and care for your comrades. And when shit hits the fan, you need to be able to carry your friend plus his equipment, because you sure as hell wont be able to get it off him when the bullets start flying. Unless you fancy having a few new holes in your body as well.

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While still having a stronger upper body than women who also don't train

They just do more work with hands, if women will work more they'll have the same upper body.

No. Send your average man and your average women into the gym 3 times a week with the same workout. The man will soon outperform the woman, lifting heavier, guaranteed. Men and women have a different ceiling when it comes to physical ability

Not only athletes performed in wars. Physically weak people became heroes too.

No. Find me a women who can squat or deadlift like a man. THAT is lower body. Hell, I can only squat around 200 lb and that is more than pretty much all the women who hit the gym at the regular. And we have some pretty jacked women at our gym, I can tell you that.

They just don't use steroids and don't use the biggest weight to not lose beauty (while they can).

What do you actually mean by 'infantry movement'? Just infantry moving around and about? Yeah, we men are better at that as well. Run faster for longer, that's what a man in shape, and trust me the military WILL whip you into shape, do.

Women at marathon often run better, then men at olympic games.

Upper body strength is most definitely need to haul heavy equipment around without collapsing like a sack of potatoes. Soldiers don't just carry assault rifles, they also carry MGs, RPGs, explosives, first aid equipment, munitions, etc.

Let the machine gunner carry his machine gun, while women can carry her M16 - why should she carry his MG? Not only athletes participated in wars, many people of age more then 65 fighted and had no problems with weight carry.

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They just do more work with hands, if women will work more they'll have the same upper body.

No they wont. Also, hands have fuck all to do with it.

Not only athletes performed in wars. Physically weak people became heroes too.

No they don't. They receive training and become strong, or they die a bloody death.

They just don't use steroids and don't use the biggest weight to not lose beauty (while they can).

Neither do male athletes. The few that do use performance enhancing drugs look like shit a few years later. I've seen guys like that, it's not pretty. by comparison, the guys that have patience and slowly work their way up the weights look stellar even in old age.

Women at marathon often run better, then men at olympic games.

No they don't. Also, marathon IS an Olympic discipline. And men outperform the women there as well.

Let the machine gunner carry his machine gun, while women can carry her M16 - why should she carry his MG?

Because he might die and when she is the next available person, it's her job to pick up that MG and use it. Because the others need cover fire to NOT DIE.

EVERY SOLDIER NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTIONS THEN ANYONE ELSE IN THEIR UNIT OR THEY WILL DRAG THEIR COMRADES DOWN AND GET THEM KILLED! HOW THE FUCK IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!

many people of age more then 65 fighted and had no problems with weight carry.

No they didn't. They few that actually did are outliers or performed in functions far far away from the actual fighting. You don't make decision based on outliers, you work with averages. Find me ONE military org that doesn't set an upper age limit for recruitment.

You are a fucking idiot and you don't know what you are talking about. I reckon that all your arguments come from the same place: your arse. I am done with you.

[EDIT]

Sorry for the harsh language, but I have absolutely no tolerance for people trying to take me for a fool. It's insulting.

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No they wont. Also, hands have fuck all to do with it.

Yes they do. Or they have more body fat.

No they don't. They receive training and become strong, or they die a bloody death.

How then soviet women sniper at age 55 became hero? Any women can become regular infantry soldier.

Neither do male athletes.

All men who train in gym use protein. If some one says he doesn't - 99% he's liar.

No they don't. Also, marathon IS an Olympic discipline. And men outperform the women there as well.

Paula Radcliffe 2:15 - just 12 minutes slower then men's WR. Good enough to serve in army.

Because he might die and when she is the next available person, it's her job to pick up that MG and use it. Because the others need cover fire to NOT DIE.

Is MG obligatory equipment for any infantry soldier ? I saw many modern wars video and there was only one MG, others used rifles. The answer is simple - if there are men who don't want to fight with women in one squad because they make danger for them - the let that people to be conscripted first. If there would be needed more people then the ones who don't want women to serve - then there men and women should be conscripted equally.

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes they do. Or they have more body fat.

Then explain to me how the top women athletes don't come anywhere close to the top male athletes. Males have more muscle mass, period. That's fucking basic biology.

How then soviet women sniper at age 55 became hero?

Who? And how much frontline fighting did she do? Storming trenches or enemy positions? None? Well, there is your answer.

And again: WE DON'T PLAN WITH OUTLIERS!

All men who train in gym use protein.

Protein is not an performance enhancing drug. Protein shakes are merely a convenient way to increase your protein intake to give your body the needed raw materials to synthesize muscle tissue, without having to consume insane amounts of meat or dairy products. Most protein shakes ARE in fact dairy products, the protein powder is derived from milk.

Paula Radcliffe 2:15 - just 12 minutes slower then men's WR.

12 minutes slower. Outperformed. Can't keep up with males. DO YOU GET IT YET?!

Is MG obligatory equipment for any infantry soldier?

Yes, every soldier needs to be able to pick up any weapon his military utilizes and be able to use it well.

I saw many modern wars video

And I served in the German military. I like anyone else around me, learned how to use the G36, the MG3, the P8, and the Panzerfaust 3.

Also what you didn't see in those cute videos of yours is that the next day another guy gets to carry the MG. Because that thing is fucking heavy and no one wants to carry it around all the time.

But I am in no way surprised that you never served in the military. Explains the ignorant drivel coming out of your mouth.

if there are men who don't want to fight with women in one squad because they make danger for them - the let that people to be conscripted first.

You really have no fucking clue on how an organized military functions.

Now scat.

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then explain to me how the top women athletes don't come anywhere close to the top male athletes. Males have more muscle mass, period. That's fucking basic biology.

Very simple. Not all males have more muscles - just best athletes have. Average men have same muscles as average women if they are doing the same training.

Who? And how much frontline fighting did she do? Storming trenches or enemy positions? None? Well, there is your answer.

Pavlichenko had the option of becoming a nurse but refused; "I joined the army when women were not yet accepted". There she became one of 2,000 female snipers in the Red Army, of whom about 500 survived the war. She made her first two kills as a sniper near Belyayevka, using a Tokarev SVT-40 semi-automatic rifle with 3.5X telescopic sight. Pavlichenko fought for about two and a half months near Odessa where she recorded 187 kills. In May 1942, Lieutenant Pavlichenko was cited by the Southern Army Council for killing 257 German soldiers. Her total of confirmed kills during World War II was 309, including 36 enemy snipers.

Protein is not an performance enhancing drug.

Rly? Then the moon is made from cheese. xD

12 minutes slower. Outperformed. Can't keep up with males.

But better then 99.999999999% men at planet.

Yes, every soldier needs to be able to pick up any weapon his military utilizes and be able to use it well.

So any soldier should be able to control aircraft carrier? xD

Also what you didn't see in those cute videos of yours is that the next day another guy gets to carry the MG. Because that thing is fucking heavy and no one wants to carry it around all the time.

Any women can carry MG, it just depends how long. But with every next attempt she will carry it more. Anyway, men with height 200 centimetres and 160 are different by strenght, but no one says that we should not conscript men with height 160, 170, or 180 and use just 2 meters giants because they carry MG better then others.

[–]Urishima 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Urishima 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Urishima 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The gender differences are far higher than differences between genetic populations. Also, most countries today still have a pretty homogeneous population, usually one genetic population that makes up the vast majority and then some minorities. So your argument is entirely academic and pointless.

I expect military leaders to take the course of action that results in the least casualties, excluding just giving up of course. That is their moral duty towards the society they serve and to the soldiers that serve under them.

I do not want women in fighting roles next to men. It will lead to disaster. Period.

If you think so little of the lives involved in fighting, I guess we can count ourselves lucky that you are obviously not someone holding a high office within the military of whatever country you life in.

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not rly, recent studies showed that brain differences between different people are much bigger then brain differences between sexes.

Even if that is true, which I doubt, it has little to do with athletic ability.

That's not moral duty of strong human to protect and die for weak human, because all people are equal and no one should protect the other except by free will.

Then why the fuck are you arguing for a draft for anyone at all? That is the polar opposite of free will.

This isn't about individuals making choices, this is about the military as an organization making choices that limit the loss of life AT THE FRONTLINE. Hopefully the capitalization will help you make the connection.

If, for example, men with black skin fight better then with white, or opposite, should we exclude men with one of skin color from conscription or draft?

I already pointed out that this argument has no practical use.

Let me quote myself, in the hope that you finally get the argument:

I do not want women in fighting roles next to men. It will lead to disaster. Period.

By disaster I mean, more men will die than if the women were not there.

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Urishima1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WomenMustServeInArmy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link