Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Wehrpflicht
I used this title because it seemed catchy and I didn't know an English word off hand.
Now I have an explanation and then a question. First the explanation:
In Germany you usually go to school from the age of 6 to 18/19 if you want to do collage, if not 16. So at the age of 19 EVERY man in Germany has to go to the army or civilian service, you have to. Since I am a pacifist I am definitely not going to the army. You also get money for the half a year you work. Somehow I still have a problem being forced to do so, I would like to take a Job myself or start studying already.
I now wanted to ask if it's the same in the US, Canada, Australia and other countries. I would also like to here your opinion!
Now I have an explanation and then a question. First the explanation:
In Germany you usually go to school from the age of 6 to 18/19 if you want to do collage, if not 16. So at the age of 19 EVERY man in Germany has to go to the army or civilian service, you have to. Since I am a pacifist I am definitely not going to the army. You also get money for the half a year you work. Somehow I still have a problem being forced to do so, I would like to take a Job myself or start studying already.
I now wanted to ask if it's the same in the US, Canada, Australia and other countries. I would also like to here your opinion!
Comments
Based on the literal translation of wehr="fight" and pflicht="duty" as something like "military service" or "conscription". The online Deutsch-Englisch Woerterbuch at dict.leo.org confirms that.
We have no national service requirement in the US. There was a draft at one point, but the US military has been all volunteer since some time in the 1970's. The closest we come to such a concept are programs that will grant incentives to people who volunteer for the military or national service-like jobs. Examples would be the military paying for all or part of the education of some soldiers through ROTC or the GI bill, or student loans being reduced in exchange for a person teaching in "underserved areas" of the country.
I like the idea of national service, but making it compulsory troubles my libertarian (small 'l') sensibilities.
Cheers,
Hank
*Wiping tears from my eyes*
There is no way this would ever be supported in the U.S. If any such legislation ever passed, the populations of Canada and Mexico would double instantly.
<rant about stupid military and politicians>
I've been a pacifist since I was approximately 16. At the time I was called in to the military service, pacifists had a hard time getting out of the military duty. We had to write a personal application claiming our "serious belief", and were later called in to an interview at the local police station where they tried to find out if we were actually telling the truth about our conviction. There are some horrible stories about these interviews, especially in small towns where such abnormal opinions are considered insanity (Who can trust someone who refuses to learn to kill other people?!). On top of that, the civil service was 4 moths longer as a punishment (yes, punishment) for not joining the valiant troops.
The politicians were very careful not to make the civil service look more tempting than the military. It was very important that you did not get a service that would benefit your future career. Meanwhile the military gives paid education and job experience for almost anything. Hurray.
This system has changed quite a lot during the last few years. Since the 50's the Norwegian defence strategy has been to stall the invading Russian/Soviet forces for 24 hours until NATO comes to the rescue (and it still is). The "human shield" strategy has now been replaced by "high tech shield" meaning the military doesn't need all those young men anymore. A large part of the force has just 9 or 6 months of service, and it's really easy to avoid the whole thing by just complaining about a sore back or something. Fewer pacifists apply for civil service since it's so easy to get off the whole thing, even though all you have to do now is to put your name on a standard form, and the service time has been reduced.
</rant about stupid military and politicians>
I made sure I got a civil service that was beneficial to both education and future career, although I was not supposed to. That was the logical path for me. It was an experience I'm glad i had even though I was forced to have a 1.5 years break from my studies (12 moths + 4 months pacifist punishment).
I think that people IN the military can avoid being sent overseas into combat if they play the 'conciencious objector' card. Basically it's like saying "I like the military, I like what I do, but the war you want to send me to is wrong in my opinion and I will not participate." (Feel free to correct me on this point if I'm wrong)
What are your options for getting out of it? Maybe you should just try to do it and get it over with when the chance of going to war is slim (not that I know what the political climate is like over there - your call). Do you become a Reservist afterward? (Probably).
I could get out of it and the chance of me getting into a war through out my half a year is very VERY unlikely since Germany doesn't really have any enemies (or no obvious ones). My main problem is just the idea of getting forced to do so.
There might be an argument in an antiquated view of war that women simply do not have the genetic capacity for physical work that men have. I think that is hard to disprove. However, modern warfare greatly equalizes the playing field.
Tangential to this topic is how nuts everyone goes with the women "firsts." I banged my head against the wall during the media clamor over Nancy Pelosi becoming the Speaker of the House. Does her vagina in some way enable her to do a better job? Do her breasts make for better legislation? Do those feminine hips help her bang the gavel better? I think not.
We've had equal rights in this country for a long time. I think our generation is dumbfounded about the continuing "positive profiling" of both women and minorities. First Latino mayor. First black president. First gay governor. Who the hell cares? It doesn't... or shouldn't affect their job performance.
They're all people. This so-called positive profiling is nothing but a more discreet form of sexism and racism. Or am I wrong?
If you don't want to be in the military then those around you don't want you there either!
Funny story: When I was in grade school one of my friends had a father who ran a machine shop out of his garage. Because he was a Vietnam Vet he got certain advantages in regards to getting government contracts. The thing is he was drafted. It gets better...
Normally we see draftees as being stuck in the infantry and not being happy. This man was so smart and technically proficient that he ended up in helicopter repair school! Other guys in his class were dumbfounded! They had worked their asses off to get this particular job and here was this low down draftee in their midst!
I am against the draft because I do not want to see scummy folks causing problems for the dedicated soldiers.
I am for some form of compulsory service though.
I think it is sad, but these things still need to be noticed. We have a lower percentage of women in the government than countries like India - which guarantee far fewer rights to women. I am sorry, but the Country is in a position where it *could* be equal, but it remains unequal. Go to any place of business and look at the ratio of female secretaries to male bosses. Consider that women are seen to be less valuable employees because they may take time off to have babies, etc., but the fact that women usually come in earlier and take less time for breaks is never considered. Also, I don't see all the men that tout family values taking time off to be with their children, or leaving work early to pick up their ill child from the nurse's office at school.
While it would be great if women and minorities in power were unremarkable and old-hat, it simply isn't the case. If we were noting second female president or fifth transgendered congressman, it would be one thing... but these are firsts and prejudice against these candidates still exists within the mainstream.
I hate that we colorcode and sexcode all of our public figures in the name of progress. If it were true progress, it wouldn't make a difference. I won't vote for a woman or a minority based on that qualification, ONLY ON THEIR STANCES ON ISSUES. Statements by people like Penn that he'll vote for Hillary just to get a woman in office "because it's time" make my blood boil. How is that any better than the traditional form of sexism?
The male-boss-female-secretary argument also upsets me. It is another perfect example of uncorrelated data being used to prop up a dead point. The whole glass ceiling debate is based on the premise that there is a huge cultural conspiracy in action. We all know that big conspiracies crumble under their own weight. Is it possible that there are other factors in play in the corporate ladder-climbing game?
Psychologically, men are willing to take more and greater risks than women.
Maybe this plays a role in the seeming workplace gap. But while you point out that there are lots of women secretaries, why don't you also site low-profile, low-respect jobs like janitors and garbage collectors where men are also dominant? There are two sides to the glass ceiling story, too.
Don't believe me? Read this.
Also try this.
And this sheds an interesting light on further gender equality studies.
IOW, I will vote for the best candidate regardless of their gender. I have seen far too many cases in the business world where people were promoted not because of their ability but to avoid a possible law suit based on perceived in-equality. People wonder why our education system is sucking these days this is one of the reasons. Our society should be colorblind but it will never be that way. Too many politicians and flim-flam men make their living off of creating a perception of racial inequality.
Side issue: Why is everyone so comfortable calling her "Hillary", but continue to call him "Obama"? Is it more respectful to use his last name? Does he deserve this extra respect just because he's a guy? Or is it just easier to say and remember "Obama" than "Barack"?
1) Clarity -- There is more than one prominent Clinton, and I wouldn't want anyone to think I was referring to George.
2) Vowels -- Obama is much easier and verbally pleasing than the harsher Barack.
3) Branding -- These two individuals' respective handles have been popularized in media, especially in online discussion and parody references.
Never has there been an African American head-coach in the Super Bowl. This year, both head coaches are black. The general opinion seems to be that this is a big deal and a good thing. People also seem to agree that we look forward to a day when it is not a big deal.
There always have been and always will be firsts of this nature, especially in the US. People will always pay attention to them and make big deals about them. Think about it. Way back in the day people would say things like, OMG, we have an Irish mayor. OMG, we have an Italian in Congress. OMG, the governor is a Jew. Nowadays, nobody made a big deal about Spitzer being Jewish. In the present time we are seeing black and women making the final step to being so equal that nobody notices anymore. In the future we are going to see the first MySpace kids take office. After that it will be the first Cyborg president and the first robot actor. One day we'll have a big deal about the first being of pure energy playing baseball.
You use these events as landmarks in the history of our culture and society. You can figure out exactly where and when hatred and fear of what is new and unusual coming and going. There will constantly be new groups and we will constantly spend lots of time assimilating and accepting them. That's just the way it is.
Oh yeah, and about military service. I'm against mandatory service because I am pro-freedom. Despite that, personally I would be willing to do it, if they just changed one thing. My main problem is that they pretty much force you into a job of killing people. If there were some guarantee I could join the military and only ever have to do computer work, I might even volunteer because it would be a programming adventure around the world for free. I think what every country, especially the US, really needs is some sort of volunteer non-military service. People need a way to serve their country and be adequately compensated without putting their lives on the line.
The vast majority of the US Army is NOT made up of ground pounders. There are doctors, accountants, the whole nine yards!
I almost changed specialities and re-enlisted to be a satellite systems repairman but... I was ready for a change as Clinton had been elected...
I am an American though my ancestry is Scottish/Italian.