Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Well, there is no good reasons not to have men and women face the same requirement no?

Well in the perfect world no...

In the real world, yes. Since men and women do not have the same kind of fitness.

So for things like the physical test to become a police officer. The requirement for women are different as the test is just supposed to see if your physically fit.

For something like being an ambulance worker, idealy the requirement is that you have to be able to lift a person regardless of gender.

Though this is the Draft... So... I can't think of anything.

[TheBiggerFish]

The thing is, women are, excuse my bluntness, needed to repopulate.

[Frumple]

Well, there is no good reasons not to have men and women face the same requirement no?

Eh, there sorta' used to be. Making sure the next generation had at least one parent, that sort of thing. Probably some other things, but most military related issues that were around when the draft was put in place just... kinda' aren't in a modern military backed by a first world industry. Nowadays, if it reaches the point a draft is necessary potential population concerns are probably the least of our worries. If it's become such that conscripts are anything but a likely net negative shit has gone very, very poorly.

And TBF, that mattered more when there weren't four hundred million people in the country. Anything that's going to make repopulation a concern is going to have glassed half the continent and the US just won't bloody be there anymore.

[Aklyon]

The thing is, women are, excuse my bluntness, needed to repopulate.

You kinda need both, man.

[TheBiggerFish]

The thing is, women are, excuse my bluntness, needed to repopulate.

You kinda need both, man.

Yes, but you can share men.

Eh, I dunno.

[Harry Baldman]

Yes, but you can share men.

Eh, I dunno.

You usually don't. And when you do, the result is usually disappointing.

[mainiac]

[Frumple]

Eh, we're pretty sure at this point, though it's rather amazingly risky with current technology and methodology, we could use guys to carry children to term, too. If for some reason viable child incubators were an issue. There's more options nowadays.

Not that it really matters what options there are. If it became something that was an actual issue the US would probably no longer exist as an entity. Likely most of the rest of the world wouldn't, either, really. There's a lot of goddamn people on this planet right now.

[Rolan7]

The thing is, women are, excuse my bluntness, needed to repopulate.

That was arguably a concern in ancient times, it just isn't anymore.  Even if we assume it's important to continue growing more people exponentially, which I don't agree with at all, saving the womens for repopulation only works with polygamy.  Which we don't really have.

But seriously, it's a non-issue...  WW2 basically increased our net pop growth rate after the baby boom:
http://www.fairus.org/images/content/US_Population.jpg

Then look at France.  So many French citizens died in the world wars that it had negative growth temporarily...  But afterwards its growth rate skyrocketed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#/media/File:Population2Centuries.jpg

Most of those deaths in WW2 were civilians, men and women.  Yet the population recovered and then exceeded its original growth.  Because it's not about the number of women, it's the number and size of families.

Of course, selective service (draft) doesn't have to mean front line service.  There are lots of ways to serve the country, like disaster relief efforts.  Women make fine police officers, firefighters, and EMTs.  Lifting wounded people is more about triage and technique than strength...

[MaximumZero]

Frankly, front line soldiers should be replaced by robots anyway. Our boots on the ground should not involve people throwing their lives away to bullets, bombs, and (if they're lucky,) inadequate medical care until senility.

[Rolan7]

Someday.  Tech's not there yet.

[Neonivek]

Even if the tech was here... It costs a TON!

and trust me soldiers aren't cheap.. 2.1 million dollars a year PER soldier.

[MaximumZero]

That would be a good incentive to not be world police.

[Neonivek]

That would be a good incentive to not be world police.

In all fairness the US only "World polices" when they think they can get something out of it.

[mainiac]

But seriously, it's a non-issue...  WW2 basically increased our net pop growth rate after the baby boom:
http://www.fairus.org/images/content/US_Population.jpg

Then look at France.  So many French citizens died in the world wars that it had negative growth temporarily...  But afterwards its growth rate skyrocketed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#/media/File:Population2Centuries.jpg

The US poopulation rate increased after WWII because the great depression ended.  While War Keynesianism helped end the great depression, it was already ending anyway (although the recession of '37-'38 was an unforced error).

France had it's population boom after WWII because they engaged in pronatal policies.