snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Soapbox Derby (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Senate approves women registering for draft (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=94129)

Bill 16 June 2016 02:28 PM

Senate approves women registering for draft
 
From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politi...aft/index.html

Thanks.

Bill

GenYus234 16 June 2016 03:39 PM

What's funny is that this process was started as a protest amendment by Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who opposes having women serve in combat roles. He thought that lawmakers wouldn't dare vote to have women register for the draft.

Oops.

thorny locust 16 June 2016 03:45 PM

From that article:

Quote:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, slammed the measure last week during a Senate session, calling it "a radical departure" from American history.
"The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat to my mind makes little or no sense," he said.
-- and the idea that we should forcibly conscript young boys into combat to his mind makes lots of sense?

Admittedly, I've lucked out on this one. They're taking so long to get around to it that I've aged out of any plausible likelihood of conscription.

ETA: GenYus, that's interesting. I didn't know that. -- I have somewhere hanging around in my head the idea that somewhere in the process of legalizing women's voting women were added on to a bill originally intended to enfranchise black men with the intention of killing it, but that it backfired and got the vote for both. I don't know whether that's true, though, and have no time to look it up now -- if true, it may have been on a state level.

GenYus234 16 June 2016 03:52 PM

A) Forcibly conscripting young men is traditional. Traditions don't have to make sense.
B) Cruz probably believes that women are too delicate for combat and/or that they should be on the homefront raising babies.

Tootsie Plunkette 16 June 2016 08:18 PM

I am amused, since passage of the Equal Rights Amendment was opposed because among other things it would (allegedly) lead to unisex bathrooms, gay marriage, and women being drafted into the military.

Thank goodness we finally get all that, just not the Equal Rights! Thanks a lot, Phyllis Schlafly!

Steve 16 June 2016 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1919566)
I have somewhere hanging around in my head the idea that somewhere in the process of legalizing women's voting women were added on to a bill originally intended to enfranchise black men with the intention of killing it, but that it backfired and got the vote for both. I don't know whether that's true, though, and have no time to look it up now -- if true, it may have been on a state level.

You might be thinking of this: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/la...rights_act.htm
Quote:

Is there any truth to the legend that womenís rights were included in the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an attempt to defeat the bill?

firefighter_raven 16 June 2016 08:40 PM

If it got to the point that things were bad enough to enact the draft, I'm sure a decent number of women would of already volunteered for service.

Mouse 17 June 2016 01:43 AM

If women have to register for the draft, I'll lose one of life's little pleasures: watching idiot dudes turn into women's rights activists when they hear we don't have to register for the draft.

Though in all honesty, I never liked the idea of a draft anyway. Just have the view that if you have to resort to it to get people to fight in your wars, maybe you should ask why you're fighting said war.

But then again, since reinstating the draft would be political suicide for whichever party involved, registering for it probably doesn't mean anything.

thorny locust 17 June 2016 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 1919612)
You might be thinking of this:

You may be right. It's a pretty vague recollection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse (Post 1919641)
since reinstating the draft would be political suicide for whichever party involved, registering for it probably doesn't mean anything.

One advantage of also requiring it of women is that it's probably less likely to be used.

Actually, I kind of think maybe everybody should be drafted: except that military service should be only one of the options, and no one should have to choose that one. We have lots of other things that need doing, after all. Having everybody spend a couple of years between high school and college working in crews made up of people of all social groups mixed together, and in a different part of the country than they're used to, and doing a variety of jobs they otherwise might not have ever tried, could probably accomplish a lot of good. Whether it would accomplish more good than the arguable harm of insisting on taking those years from people's own choice of what they wanted to do is of course another question.

Mouse 18 June 2016 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1919649)

Actually, I kind of think maybe everybody should be drafted: except that military service should be only one of the options, and no one should have to choose that one. We have lots of other things that need doing, after all. Having everybody spend a couple of years between high school and college working in crews made up of people of all social groups mixed together, and in a different part of the country than they're used to, and doing a variety of jobs they otherwise might not have ever tried, could probably accomplish a lot of good. Whether it would accomplish more good than the arguable harm of insisting on taking those years from people's own choice of what they wanted to do is of course another question.

That is actually a really cool idea, thorny locust. We had similar programs during the Great Depression and I honestly think a lot of people would benefit from something similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps. Probably acquire more useful job skills in that kind of program than I did at college.

I know, a whole lotta thought would have to be put into this, figuring out how all this would work and who would do what, but y'know, it'd be nice if we thought about it, instead of whining about how it's too hard and not doing anything. Things I've Learned Thanks to Arguing with the Right: If a solution doesn't solve a problem forever and institute a utopia, it is wrong and we were foolish to even try. :rolleyes:

thorny locust 18 June 2016 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse (Post 1919722)
That is actually a really cool idea, thorny locust.

Thanks, Mouse. I actually have a planet-wide society in my head that effectively does that; but, as I made them up, I can have this have been instituted three thousand years ago by the victors in a war (who didn't want to have another one.)

As I made them up, it also works quite nicely. (Part of the trick is that everybody has to leave home. You can't be a grownup, or marry, or do their equivalent of owning property, until you've left home and gone off somewhere else for at least two years -- leaving whatever privileges you did or didn't have there behind you.) Whether it would prevent wars for three thousand years in people I hadn't made up is another question entirely. However, the fact that I made it up doesn't make it a bad idea. We made up very large parts of the society we're living in, after all.

GenYus234 18 June 2016 06:19 PM

I think that's called being LDS.

thorny locust 18 June 2016 08:18 PM

Um, no.

LDS, as near as I can tell, determinedly take their own culture with them, which they're trying to convince the benighted residents of wherever they wound up to join. The point of the trip taken by the people in my head is that they're supposed to be primarily learning, not teaching.

-- apologies to LDS if I've actually got that wrong. I do not take proselytizing well (at least unless it's to people who have actively requested to hear it.)

-- how a society would keep it from turning into attempts at conversion, and/or a pure formality that nobody actully learns anything from, over the course of three thousand years is another question. There are multiple reasons this thing hasn't been published (though certainly among them is that I haven't written most of it yet.)

ASL 19 June 2016 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1919649)
Actually, I kind of think maybe everybody should be drafted: except that military service should be only one of the options, and no one should have to choose that one. We have lots of other things that need doing, after all.

If these jobs are so essential, then why isnít society willing to pay to have them performed? Sounds like you want to force people into indentured servitude, presumably as a condition of receiving what you and I would consider basic citizenship rights. Or would there be no consequence to evading involuntary servitude in your utopia?

thorny locust 19 June 2016 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASL (Post 1919799)
If these jobs are so essential, then why isnít society willing to pay to have them performed?

You got me.

Maybe for the same reasons that we can have empty houses falling down for lack of occupancy, while the people who lived in them become homeless?

But infrastructure is falling apart all over the place, so in many areas is housing, those caring for small children and the elderly are often doing it shorthanded to the point of exhaustion, basic research in many areas is quite literally going begging for people and funding. I could go on.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ASL (Post 1919799)
Sounds like you want to force people into indentured servitude, presumably as a condition of receiving what you and I would consider basic citizenship rights. Or would there be no consequence to evading involuntary servitude in your utopia?

1) I specifically said that sort of argument would be an obvious downside.

2) People in the armed forces get food, housing, and pay. So, in my imagination, would people in the non-armed forces. Very many people in this society are "forced into servitude" at work they hate doing because they need food, housing, and a paycheck. We don't, as a society, snarl at this; we just take it for granted.

3) Utopia doesn't exist, and won't. But we're not living in it now, either. The current system of borrowing lots of money to go to college, straight out of high school, in a field that may or may not be the right one for you, and may or may not have jobs available when you get out of college, but you have to pay the money back anyway -- this also has its downsides. But hey, everybody freely chose to borrow that money and study that particular field, entirely freely and in a vacuum with no pressure applied and no consequences to their choices, right? So that's OK then!

crescent 19 June 2016 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 1919649)
Actually, I kind of think maybe everybody should be drafted: except that military service should be only one of the options, and no one should have to choose that one. We have lots of other things that need doing, after all. Having everybody spend a couple of years between high school and college working in crews made up of people of all social groups mixed together, and in a different part of the country than they're used to, and doing a variety of jobs they otherwise might not have ever tried, could probably accomplish a lot of good. Whether it would accomplish more good than the arguable harm of insisting on taking those years from people's own choice of what they wanted to do is of course another question.

It might be hard to find enough work for everyone. I used to run a lot of Conservation Corps labor groups back when I worked for the National Park Service. At times is was a real challenge to find enough work for them to do.

The Corps members mostly seemed to love the work, and I think the benefit to the members is as you described it. But to try it out on a universal scale would be challenging, to say the least.

I served in the Peace Corps myself, and simply scaling that up much above current levels would also be challenging.

I also think that in the event of a war (or in a scenario where a war seemed likely), those with wealth and privilege would use that wealth and privilege to secure non-military spots, just as happened during the war in Vietnam.

thorny locust 19 June 2016 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 1919826)
to try it out on a universal scale would be challenging, to say the least.

True.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 1919826)
I also think that in the event of a war (or in a scenario where a war seemed likely), those with wealth and privilege would use that wealth and privilege to secure non-military spots, just as happened during the war in Vietnam.

Also likely to be true; but, as you point out, this happens anyway.

Esprise Me 19 June 2016 08:46 PM

I really like the idea of individuals choosing to do something like this, but I'm not sure how much it would benefit those conscripted into it.

I never did the Peace Corps, but I did a similar short-term program through a private organization where I volunteered for five weeks in Costa Rica, mostly teaching English to kids. I learned a lot about the culture, improved my Spanish, and I like to think I was of some use. I had some great conversations with the other volunteers that led me to think we all had our perspectives shifted a bit, even from just a month or so of being immersed in a different environment.

But then there was this group of corporate employees that showed up for a week as part of a company-sponsored team-building activity. Some of them were chill, but a few of them were clearly not into the whole idea and made it known to everyone, including the staff at the house where we were all staying. One of them, almost immediately upon arriving, announced that she hoped the food would be better here than at their last retreat, where--I hope you guys are sitting down--they served lobster without drawn butter. It was awful, she said.

Maybe if Lobster Girl had spent more than a week digging ditches in Central America she would've gained some perspective too, but I dunno. I think you have to be in a certain place mentally to be receptive to certain life lessons that are being laid before you, and she just wasn't there. Nor do I think she was going to get there through someone else's mandate.

ganzfeld 19 June 2016 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASL (Post 1919799)
If these jobs are so essential, then why isnít society willing to pay to have them performed? Sounds like you want to force people into indentured servitude, [...]

Couldn't these same questions be asked of involuntary conscription?

GenYus234 20 June 2016 03:44 PM

They could and should be. But there is also a big difference between a program that affects a limited number of people for a limited time for (hopefully) a national crisis vs a program that affects everyone all the time for non-emergency purpose.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.