My two cents:
Given you actually did an project on it... do you actually have
the facts, figures and numbers to indicate that it indeed will be
too high a cost to pay?
Until then, I find it difficult to believe your statement by the
sheer words of them alone. It seems to me in fact that what we must
account for are two years (assuming no call back) of productivity
lost in the workforce. But I must question if this can really be
tanked... I see no reason why not. It's not as if we're talking 10
years here.
And why do you percieve defense spending a burdern? Without a
credible defence there would really be no Singapore to begin with
so I think that point is moot at best, and circular at worst.
Secondly, if we all did NS, who'd care for the
young/old/sick in the event of a war?
You seem to think of NS soley as picking up a weapon, and going
to fight the enemy. But I must submit that this NS for females
would not involve military defence, but rather be in the civil
sectors in crisis.
Caring for the young/old/sick during war would be their NS duty,
and the thing they train for. It beats having a civillian around
with absolutely no crisis-skills that can be useful in time of war,
and at worst a liability. When a bomb drops we will get less
confused and frightened people and more people with a purpose, a
skill, and organization on how to reduce the damage.
Leave the fighting to the guys I say, but train our ladies to know
how to keep the home ground in working order as well.
What would it all achieve, other than equality for the
guys? And in return, you'd get the financial drain of the lost
productivity of these females, plus alot of resentment to
boot.[quote]
This is not about equality for the guys... if that was the case we
would prehaps demand that the ladies do all the same dangerous and
physically demanding tasks just for the sake of being
"equal".
But on the extreme side, the current inbalance is in that our
ladies are mostly clueless on what to do during a crisis... which
would only hurt everybody in times of crisis. Also, you are
forgetting the character building and other benefits that NS will
provide. That said, guys may complain a lot about NS (which is
really part and parcel of life), but when it push comes to shove
they know what to do in times of danger. I'm not sure what can be
said for our ladies now.
As for the productivity loss and drain, you've yet to produce the
figures, but I wonder if it's more imaginary then real. I seriously
doubt Singapore would be lost because our ladies had to give up two
or so years.
And resentment? I think it goes a long way towards reducing
resentment then increasing it. The higher starting pay for males
can be scrapped, guys can finally shut most of their rational
compliants about the unfairness of NS finally and what have you
not.
[quote]Nursing for all females is a ludicrous idea. The
threadstarter probably had no idea what the job involves, and what
kind of constitution one must have to do it.
Community service for all the girls might be a more workable idea,
but again there's the lost productivity.
The question is then if productivity must be the bottom line for
our nation. In the same vein one can argue for a lot of things in
the name of productivity.
On the other hand, the other benefits of female NS can go a long
way as well.
I admit conscription is truly the burden of citizenship
for the males, and I sympathise. Fortunately for me, sharing out
the burden with the females is just not an economically viable
option
I don't see conscription as a burdern on my part, having done
it. It sure has no lack of bad moments but all in all I learnt a
lot in there.
In many ways it was an extra two years of education, a school in
which to learn many life skills that are not taught in
school.
I submit that female National Service is indeed a possible idea,
not for the sake of equality... but for the advantages it provides
to the female character and nation building and security in
whole.
