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.