Ever notice how women are not forced to sign up for selective service? Now I can't see any lobbying that goes around from letters sent to senators and such but doesn't it seem unfair? You can't have equality if you leave out all the bad parts. Anyhow, according to the website heres why:

The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

Apparently according to the courts, women are unfit for combat, why do we allow them into combat posistions at all?

And take a look at this:
However, an appendix to its report suggested that public opinion was divided on the issue. The appendix, which included the results of a random telephone survey of 1,500 adults, showed that, in the event of a draft for a national emergency or threat of war (and assuming an ample pool of young men exists), 52 percent of respondents indicated women should be drafted, about 39 percent of respondents indicated women should not be drafted, and 10 percent responded they did not know.

Heres the entire URL: http://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm

Anyhow, so apparently women, being completely unfit for combat should not be allowed to be drafted though more than half the people out of a random 1500 person survey said yes? Last time I checked equality worked both ways.

While still in highschool many times we were asked about the war, many of the females replied: "I don't care because i'm not going to be drafted." Well girlie, if I had my say you'd be out there on the frontline with me in case of a draft. Why should they give women benefits of being a man without giving them the consequences as well? Are we breeding this kind of irresponisble, careless, attitude about war and our military in women? I certainly hope not.

I believe strongly in equal rights, i think most people on this forum agree, we have to remember equal rights means you take the good with the bad.

I very much agree with equal rights and very much agree with the reasons and principles behind your post. However, equality this, equality that, some people seem to forget that WHATEVER you say or do, men and women are going to be inherantly different. So in this question I would have to say that women should not be drafted for service. I would not want my wife or gf to be drafted, I would rather fight instead of them if it really came down to it. Call me old fashioned but I still like a woman to feel that her man is her source of security. Men should look after their women and sending them to fight is not doing this.

But in general I agree that yes, where women are physically/emotionally suited they should get the good and bad of equal rights. In fact in the case men are drafted into military service, women should be drafted into suitable service that is useful to the nation but is not combat.

If your wife of girlfriend said: "Honey! I'm gonna go join the marines!" you would say, no way, absolutely not, your a woman and therefore should not be in combat.

S'pose thats your opinion.

The whole idea of not wanting your wife or girlfriend to be drafted is kind of ridiculous. Do you think your mother would say: Whoopee! My sons being drafted! Woo!

Who the hell WANTS to be themselves or see someone the they love get drafted???

I can't argue with your opinion about no women in combat so to each his own i suppose.

No I wouldn't say "you're a woman and therefore should not be in combat". The reason is I'd be more worried about them than a man, because whether you like it or not, men are more rugged than women and physically can take more punishment (in general). I still wouldn't want, say, my brother or good friend to go but that's still different than a woman you love IMHO.

Like I said, I agree that equality means the bad as well...we just have to remember the inherant differences of men and women and adjust the application of equality accordingly. Don't you agree?

[ 09-17-2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

I think if you want to be fair and equal you have to draft women, too. But you don't have to send them on the frontline, there are plenty of "easier" positions in the army.

[img]graemlins/laughsaywhat.gif[/img] You're a cunning man, Luvian. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Draft the ladies, let the draft board decide if they are physically and emotionally fit for combat or desk jobs. Or let the draft board say that the women should stay home. Let's face it, anyone who gets drafted never planned on the military; the ones they want are more likely to have already joined. They only need to draft now if they are throwing away our soldiers lives out there. Basically the weaponry in use today is efficient enough that hundreds of thousands of ground troops with only a few weeks training would be trampled in no time. To get a draftee up to speed with some of the equipment they'd have to use, we'd have to draft them before the NEED ever arose.

Alright heres my take on it.
1: Men have the genetic propensity for greater strength, women have the genetic propensity for greater endurance, both are valuable in the military.
2: If you can't get through basic training during the draft then you won't get sent into combat, man or woman, unless they were really desperate.
3: If women are apparently so incapable of competing with men in the military why allow them in at all? You could stick them all in cushy desk jobs and leave room open for the "real soldiers."

So, lets take a look at this; men and women have genetic propensities geared toward strength or endurance, both of which are useful. If a man or a woman can't get through basic training they are a liability on the battle field, like it or not, if you can't carry that pack 20 miles, take too many breaks, slow down your squad, your going to get them killed, better you not be there at all. If woman can't be on the front line, what makes me trust them behind them? What if the base camp they are at is a target of an ambush? What then? Do we just say "oh well, if they were men they would be fine, as women though and incapable frontline combatants, they are as good as dead."

I've yet too see a really strong logical case against forcing women to sign up for selective service. If they can't perform in selective service then why would I trust them to perform in the standard sign up?

Heh.. I know plenty of women with more balls then the average male. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. My country killed the draft years ago, and is currently busy sacking 1/7th of its troops.

Women should be able to join the armed forces just as men but they should be measured by the same standard as men. In other word don't put a woman in a position she can't handle just because she happen to be a woman. It can be bad enough in the civil life but disasteruos in the army. If a woman don't meet the requirement for a certain post then she can't have it, simple as that. Always take the one that fits best regardless of sex.

some very good points. I agree it is completely unfair, but such is life.

Men and Women are, and should be, equal when it comes to their civil rights. In truth, it shouldn’t go any farther than that. Men and Women are NOT equal when it comes down to physical and psychological attributes. This point could be argued extensively, but when all is said and done the fact still remains that there are specific chemical differences in the composition of people between the sexes.

Often you will hear people state examples of a woman who exceeded expectations and was able to perform a physical task above and beyond what is considered normal. However, these people fail to realize that while this particular person was able to do such, that one person is a singular exception in a much larger sample. At the same time, taking an extreme from one sample (women) and comparing it to the average of another sample (men) does not denote equality. It is a fact that the overall potential for strength in a man is higher than that of women.

The above statement can also be applied to the psychological component of the human. Women are, on average, on a level of emotion evolution that men are not. This does come with a draw back when presented as an argument in the current discussion. One reason men are better suited for the emotion rigors of war is simply due to them having a higher level of emotional detachment.

One point off topic concerning the above statement is Society has in many areas (primarily America) started to “feminize” men to a point where the emotion evolution of men in becoming equal to that of the women. As such, there will soon be a time where this portion of reasoning becomes null and void. In my opinion, it creates an imbalance and is not healthy for Society as a whole.

Returning to the topic, because of the reasons stated I believe that in no way should women be entered into the draft process. In times of war, time becomes a luxury, and by drafting only men you use a sample that has an average equal to the result you are looking at obtaining. If women were instituted into the draft, a situation would occur where the target samples average is now deficient when compared to the desired result.

As for women enlisting in the military, the same way of thinking should be used, as it should be in every facet of life. If a person meets the standards necessary to succeed in any position then they should be allowed the opportunity to do so. However, the standards should be the same for every sex and race and those who perform the highest should be given the opportunity. Quotas based upon how many of each sex or races are within any given position is just another method of watering down Society. By doing so, we set ourselves up to fail in the long run.

I don't think my government is ever going to draft me but if they did draft me but not women I'd be annoyed. Don't get me wrong if the need was there and I believed in the cause I would fight.
This is a draft we are talking about. They're not looking for the best of the best, they're looking for numbers and they're expecting loses.
Yeah sure men and women are different but we're talking about modern warfare here. Sure if it came down to a knife fight I would bet on the man but it's not like we're fighting with swords anymore. (Not to mention service in the navy and air force)
On the other side however I do see one simple fact. It takes only 1 man (or just his sperm) to get 100 women pregnant so if repopulation is of vital importance then I think I'd chose to send men in rather than women.
But if we're not talking about a world war senario then I think anyone who isn't sick who can hold a gun should be considered for the draft.

perhaps i am biased, being a woman and all....but..then again...anyway

i do not support drafting women. i do not support drafting men.

[ 09-18-2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: RevRuby ]

Thank God we don't have an active draft. We guys are forced to sign up for something that will not likely ever come into effect. I've discussed this with many of my friends some of which were formerly in the service themselves. They all believe that another draft is very unlikely.

Yes another draft is very unlikely.

As for emotional detachment in men and women I don't think we have tons of proof over that. What about homosexuals then? Men who had sex changes to women I believe are still required to sign up for selective service. Emotional detachment varies from person to person.

Second, I know time is of the essence when in a draft but its always important. As I said before, it seems most people agree that women are not as suited towards warfare as men are, if thats so why do we even let them into the military, why not focus completely on superior comabatant males and leave the women out of it all together? If women are so emotionally different and unsuited to war why let them have anything to do with it? A person who hesitates in combat will get others killed.
If women are unable to match the strength of men in warfare, why do we even bother allowing them into combat posistions. In my opinion, women enjoy a growing amount of rights, I believe they deserve the exact same treatment as men do in civil terms, HOWEVER, if you do not, or refuse to aid your country at an unexpectated time during a draft, you don't deserve the rights protected thereof.

More than half of a random telephone survey agreed that women should be forced to sign up for selective service, i'm sure that in wartime ANY warmbodies will be useful to have. If a woman can't be a front line fighter let her take other jobs, all sorts of things need filling during a draft.

I keep reading: "Since men and women are physically different and men have the ability to become stronger, only they should be drafted." By the same idea I would say, women being inferior in strength and unsuited for combat should not be allowed to join the military. I doubt you can apply genetic propensity towards muscle mass selectively. Anyhow, women can gain greater endurance than men, i'm sure that that would be useful as well.

RevRuby, I have yet to meet one person who was joyful at the though of being drafted, sometimes its necessary and I would most definately not dodge the draft if my country needed me, I don't see why women should be exempt.

In my opinion, women were not drafted because back when the draft was updated, I believe by Truman, a ton of women were not proffessionals, they were housewives, this means if a husbands off at war, shes staying home and taking care of everything there. Its was simply a matter of social roles, now we have all sorts of arrangements and even stay at home dads, the need for the mother to stay with the children has diminshed greatly.

Another note on emotional detachment, if women have such a hard time with emotional detachment IE thought unbiased by emotion, why do we allow them on jury duty, certainly such a sex that was so emotionally infirm and unable to think with strict logic should not be trusted to be impartial in the court of law with very emotional issues. In short, most people would much rather go to jury duty than to risk being killed in a war, this is just as illogical if the idea of emotional detachment were followed and completely unfair to the justice system to have to "put up" with such a sex.

I may be flamed for this but anyway, here goes
Drafting of citizens into the military should be banned under the convention of human rights. Noone should be forced into killing another human being. Its just not right

Undeniably true, although in reality things aren't as easy put as that.

About the thread over-all, why do you think the ERA was shot down? While saying that women are equal to men in every way sounds good on paper, what it comes down to is that they aren't. Another thing is, the United States citizenry is never going to accept sending off our women to die in battle.

And Andora, I partially agree with you. People should never have to kill another. But the thing is, the way humanity regards everything, that will never happen. And, if people aren't drafted in times of a serious war (WWII, anyone?), things will be worse for all. Sad, isn't it?

My feelings exactly. I don't think anyone should be drafted.

As for the law, keep in mind it was written in a different time, and just hasn't been updated as the times and attitudes towards men/women roles in society have changed.

I am against the draft, too.

Well I keep saying, if women are not equal to men, why do we allow them into the military at all, i've heard all sorts of things on this thread, some of which I believe is undeniably true, lots of which I think is ridiculous.

I know men have the genetic propensity for greater muscle mass faster than women.
I know women have the genetic propensity for greater endurace than men.

I've yet to see any proof on the issue of emotional detachment and personally think its a big fat load o' crap.

During the draft allowing women to be drafted would increase the number of warmbodies available, this is good in all sorts of ways. If your really so sure that a woman could not suceed in combat there is base camp maintenance, cooking, hauling, tending to wounded(even without being a nurse its good to have help) all sorts of stuff.

Whether people want women in combat or not is a different story, I assume they don't believe women should join most branches of the military. No pilots, no front line fighters, no reconaissance, no nothing, even with all that no base camp is ever truly safe.