Women and the Draft
 

This was originaly posted in the Draft thread but was "polluting" it.

Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office.

I find it interesting that women want equal rights; yet, they don't have to be a part of the draft. Why isn't there a feminist movement to allow women into the draft?

Let's see some intelligent discussion on the issue.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

[Quote108th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 89]To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.[/quote]


I thought that might be useful for continued discussion, and I wanted to make point from it at the least.

As for women's voting rights, and equal opportunity, the current write up for a draft does state the "fair game" of the use of women. (I apologize for the lack of words). I thouroughly believe for so many years, women were not allowed to do such "dirty work" that would be found if drafted, because man did not think they were capable. Through settler times, women were possessions - I do a great deal of genealogical research and you will find on a majority of grave markers from early times "his wife, or my wife", as this is not common practice in recent days. Time evolved, more womens movements have occured, and more has been done. In WWII, the woman was a major role in society. Here on the homeland, she was producing war materials day after day in the factories, and providing entertainment in such ways as the All American Girls Baseball League. Since WWII, we have seen an overwhelming change of the role of the woman in society, it is quite frequent that women have a great equcation, and can compete against their male counterparts. Therefore, I think if our Congress believes it is necissary to reinstate a Draft, then I hope all women will hold the ground that was gained for them through all these years, and take on the new role.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Well, the SSS classifications allow for classifying males in non-combat roles. I don't think that it'd be much of a stretch to have classifications for women in an everything-but-infantry status. Obvious exceptions, of course, going to mothers (probably falling under hardship status) and the like.

I believe that most women are fully capable of anything the men can do, sometimes better. And I'm pretty sure that the main opposition to the idea would come from the anti-draft camp, which would be arguing against it anyway.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

(GRR. My computer crashed and just deleted my whole shpiel. Anywho.)

The reason that there are hardly any feminist movements for the drafts is because of the fact that feminists have been historically known to support peace: http://college.hmco.com/history/read...acemovemen.htm

The Constitution states that no right to vote shall be denied an American citizen on the basis of sex. Some take the loose interpretation of the constitution and say that this "right" can be extended to different aspects of a woman's life, as well. Seeing this, there can be more than one interpretation to the draft. On one hand, the draft can be the right that the Constitution discusses, and it would be up to the individual to protect the liberty of her nation.

On the other hand, the draft can be seen as an invasion on the individual liberty that the Constitution states it would grant any American citizen, in this case, women.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

It's been quite a while...

When I took the SAT I remember only males having to complete a section on registering for a military draft. Is that correct?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I certainly did not have to do that when I took it this past March.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Scary times... I feel like siging 'White Rabbit' for no reason... woah, anyway....

Yes, women should be in any future draft. While I'm not sexist, raceist, or other not-good-ist, I think that when you want equal rights, you need to take it all, not just what you want. Women wanted to vote, own land, and have the same rights and freedom as men, and most recently, more economic and business freedome. I totally agree with them, but it's just wrong for you to demand for equal rights, but then back down when it comes to a draft.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

If you go to this website, you can check if you are registered to participate in the draft. I registered 5/30/2001, that date was about 1 month before I graduated high school. I would have been 17 at the time. Perhaps it's not tied in with the SAT, but I'm sure my high school played a part in having me register for a draft.

EDIT:
Now I remember, you are encouraged to register when you complete the FAFSA. I did, considering the penalty for not registering is $250,000 and/or 5 years in prison. Plus, I do have some respect for my country.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

If you check this website, you will find an overview of the history of women and the draft. In 1981 the Supreme Court has said that it does not violate the constitution to only register men for the draft. The Department of Defense reviewed the idea of women in the draft in 1994. They concluded that since there is a policy that women can not participate in front line combat, there's little benifet in drafting them.

Also note, that currently it is not possible for a woman to register for the draft.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I've begun to believe that can only happen if you do not participate.

I cannot fathom how your ignorance continues to shock and amaze me. I should, by now, be completely desensitized by all of it.

And, since it may not be obvious, though it should be -- you can be sure that I'll have a lot more to say about combating misogyny here on CD.com, feminism and differing ideas about conscription, and what happens when you make ridiculous assumptions about whole groups of people and why that makes you look like a moron.

There should be absolutely no need nor justification at all for an "intelligent discussion" about why women deserve equal rights. While we're at it, who feels like reevaluating slavery?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Please, explain to me why I should be required to enganger my life for the country and you as a woman should not. Furthermore, explain why you believe you should be able to vote a person into office who might send the men of this country into a war while you sit at home.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Using your logic... Why should physically handicaped be able to vote? Why should senior citizens be allowed to vote? I find your arguement flawed and sexist.

The 19th ammendment permits women to vote, deal with it or try to do something about it. I think this conversation was over long before it started.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

They are minorities. Women are not minorities.

EDIT:
Sure women have the right to vote. This thread is about women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms. I don't understand why we can't discuss this without personal attacks.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Maybe you should focus your attention on changing this Instead of going negative by saying that "since women can't get drafted, they shouldn't be able to vote" maybe you should be saying "why aren't women allowed to fight on the front line?"

Would you deny the women serving in the armed forces the right to vote? If they should be allowed to vote, why shouldn't every woman be allowed to vote? Or is this all about the military service? Maybe we should just allow members of the military to vote? Where are we going here?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Great post, let me put together a good response. For right now I leave you all with this quote from Martin Luther King Jr:

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Wow now...let's ease the tension. I think the main focus of this post (ideally) is what role women should play in the draft, and for the sake of avoiding argument, I'd like to stick to that. Personally, I would avoid the draft at all costs as a person because of beliefs, not because of my being female. If I was, however drafted, I would not feel very comfortable saying goodbye to male friends and watching them forced into service while I get out on account of something that is not by any means an issue (physical hardship, pregnancy are good physical reasons, not "womanness".) So I have to say my answer is yes, women should be included, because military is more than frontline combat, which I personally would never participate in through this conflict.

My 0.02

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Do I want to enter this discussion? Can I resist entering this discussion?

I agree completely that women should be drafted. I find it rather ridiculous that the arguements against allowing women to serve in infantry combat are centered on the physical differences between men and women. While agree that this is obviously an issue, if a woman meets all of the physical requirements (height, weight, stamina, strength, etc) and passes the physical exam, then what difference in the world does it make that she is a woman? How on earth can an argument such as "Women are physically weaker than men" (although based in a generalized truth) still apply?

The only part of Mike's comments that I find offensive is that he seems to be attacking women without letting them speak first. If it is in fact true that women are opposed to being drafted, then I believe it's a valid argument to ask why they support equal rights but not equal responsibilities. However, his comments are based off of that assumption, which is an unfair assumption to make.

I personally feel that women should not only be allowed to fight in the front lines but also should be drafted. If women could be drafted (can they?), I think I would sign up for the draft, to prove what we've all been hearing all our lives: that women can do anything men can do. Maybe it would be a large step for the woman's lib movement if we saw women taking on what remains to this day an untraditional role instead of women trying to convert each other to engineering.

Oh boy. *ducks*

(Disclaimer: I find nothing wrong with women being engineers. In fact, I want to be an engineer. Please hold the rotten tomatoes.)

Sexism and America
 

Things such as the garbage you pollute on these boards, irrespective of which thread you post to, lead me to believe that you possess an ignorance that is both astounding and terrifying. Your misinformed, incorrect, damaging and hurtful "conclusions" are setting the progress of this organization back, wasting my time, and planting the seeds for continued sexism, discrimination and ridiculous, unnecessary discourse like that taking place in this thread.

There is absolutely zero need to reassess the goals and accomplishments of the women's suffrage and equal rights movements as both were wholly justified in their efforts toward creating equality in law and life between men and women. You're ridiculous conclusion that women should not have the right to vote nor hold public office is, aside from obviously sexist, ill-formed and antiquated, borne out of a gargantuan, obvious lack of insight into any of the subjects about which you write.

What further justification can you provide to defend your conclusion? I am confident that there are no observations that you have made regarding the women's movement that have gone unnoticed in the past century by the many who have come before you in their efforts to perpetuate continued misogyny and sexism. I am certain that you have no more tenable ideas regarding why women are somehow your inferior. The only thing about which I am uncertain, really, is if you possess the self-preservation instinct to cut your losses and walk away. Time will tell. You were off to a good start, at the very least, when you started trying to rescind and shift focus away from the comments you made at the outset, instead pretending that this is a discussion about "women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms." It was a laudable, if utterly transparent, effort at saving face.

It seems that for the purposes of defending your conclusion, defending one's freedom can only occur through the use of violence - taking up arms against those who are perceived to be a physical threat to the safety of our borders. This, oddly enough, seems somewhat inconsistent with your fervent assurance that the United States doesn't "ignore oppressive dictators" in a previous thread, unless of course you meant simply that we don't ignore oppressive dictators that threaten our physical or economic well-being. The United States ignored the oppression of non-Aryans by Adolf Hitler for eight years before entering World War II after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Only after December 7, 1941 and an attack on its own (imperially-conquered) soil did the United States show any interest in that particularly oppressive dictator. So, on second thought, it seems as if by reading between the lines, your stated position has been entirely consistent. You're interested only in yourself and in protecting your freedoms. You show very little concern for others, their struggles, or their freedom - unless, of course, it becomes politically advantageous for you to show such concern. Thus, comments such as those you made above, suggesting that women be denied equal rights seem perfectly logical and acceptable - even preferable - in your distorted view of reality. Perhaps you're unaware of the times when the United States has taken up arms against its own people - the internment of the Japanese during World War II being the most notable. Whose freedom were we protecting then? It certainly doesn't seem like we were at all interested in defending the interests of the minority at the time, something you've previously heralded as "American."

I'm sorry that you don't believe that women like Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Susan B. Anthony did nothing to defend their freedom. Perhaps you'd have more respect for Ms. Parks if, instead of refusing to give up her seat on the bus, she physically assaulted the other riders.

Women are not exempt from the draft, they are denied access to it. This is a very important distinction that you don't seem too keen on making because it undermines everything you've written thus far. If a woman wanted to be conscripted, she could not be, both legally and as a matter of Department of Defense policy. These laws are based on archaic information from the last time a draft was instated - and subsequent laws using data from that time period as a reference. All reevaluations of the conscription laws and policies have cited these archaic court decisions as justification for continued denial of access to the draft for women.

Challenges of these laws and policies that have been taken to the courts go nowhere because they deal with the policies and practices of making and maintaining war - a responsibility afforded exclusively to the United States Congress as per our Constitution. Thus, courts have very little power in altering Congress' ability to deny women access to the draft and, as a result, the draft and military policies remain as they were created - nearly twenty five years ago.

Your argument, in short, is that because women are denied equality by law and by practice, they are undeserving of even the best effort toward achieving equality. It is disconnected and obtuse at best; truly incomprehensible at worst. The sexism of the generations that preceded us is no excuse for continued sexism among our generation. Because you deny someone some of their rights, you cannot use that as a legitimate excuse to deny them all of their rights.

Feminism, as Lisa already mentioned, is often associated with anti-war and pro-peace movements. What little feminist discourse there is about feminism and conscription shows overwhelming support for equal inclusion, but often argues for mutual exclusion from the draft.

Why should a Congress of men and women, each of whom are too old to be conscripted themselves, be able to call up a draft? They're not going to be doing much during a war except sitting around, too.

I defend my freedom by being sure that ignorance, sexism, discrimination and violence are challenged, questioned, noted, and stopped at every opportunity. Others can waste their time running around other countries chasing phantom threats with their machine guns and their tanks and their planes. I can see pretty clearly that there's plenty within our borders that needs to be defended against and I'm perfectly content earning my right to vote by making sure that people like you are consistently debunked, embarrassed, and stripped of any ability to hurt others.

Re: Sexism and America
 

Purpose:
To illustrate the problems and perhaps future endeavors of the feminist movement in the United States. I will also explain why women should not participate in a representative government due to their lack of military responsibility in keeping the United States of America a free country.


The United States of America was founded under the ideals that we will fight for our freedom. We have a paid military that receives compensation in various forms. The representative military carries out the will of all US citizens. In extreme times it is necessary to increase the size of the military by drafting citizens.

It's really quite simple- if we don't wage war on the evils of the world, we will lose our freedom. Therefore, at times we must increase the size of our standing army.

Currently the Selective Service System of the government only drafts men. The Department of Defense has said claimed that because of current policies to not allow women on the front combat lines, there is little in drafting them. Why aren't women attempting to obtain the right to register for the draft?

The feminist movement occurred very recently in our history, approximately 1971. During times in US history women were not allowed to own land, vote or hold public office. They fought hard for what they have achieved. Yet, why haven't they even attempted to argue for their ability to fulfill their military responsibility?

Ms. Perez has suggested that feminists haven't fought for more roles in military because feminists have historically been known to support peace. Unfortunately, the feminist all to easily forget that it's America's soldiers and war who have given them the rights they enjoy today.

The United States has a history of protecting those who are helpless or need assistance. It's the reason we helped Kuwait after being invaded by Iraq during the first Gulf War, or the reason we provide government funded care for people who are unable to care for themselves. Handicapped and most deficient people are required to register for the draft, but almost never serve. Would a woman argue that she is helpless and that's why she would qualify for the special privilege of not being drafted?

There is no reasonable reason for women to not register for a military draft. Therefore, you come to the following pop-culture phrase, “women like to have their cake and eat it too.” They want the positive benefits of a free society but none of the negatives, they'll leave that for the men.

I find it difficult to justify why women should have the right to vote or hold office, without accepting the military responsibility that comes with their freedom. I believe any person who joins the military should be commended, particularly women; including allowing those women the right to hold office or vote. They have accepted their military responsibility and should be allowed to participate in our representative government. Men, even if they have never served in the military accept their military responsibility by registering for the draft. Any man who does not register for the draft should not be allowed to participate in government.

In conclusion, with the liberties of becoming a United States citizen so does the responsibility. As a US citizen we have the responsibility to protect ourselves and the helpless. It's time for women to accept their military responsibility or lose their right to participate in government and accept that they are among the helpless.




Please note:
I don't personally believe what I just wrote. I don't think women should be forced into the serving the military, I also don't think they should lose their ability to participate in the government. My male instincts tell me women should not be forced into war, a “feeling from the heart” you could say. However, when you logicality evaluate the current circumstances, it makes me second-guess my instinct.

Re: Sexism and America
 

Again, this is all based on the assumption that the women think that they are "helpless" and therefore should not be included in the draft. This cannot be proven true UNLESS the opinion of solely the women is taken - and the only way to do this is to poll all women of draft conscription age in America.

Re: Sexism and America
 

True... the assumptian was made, by me at least, because feminists are not trying to lobby the government for inclusion into the draft. You are right in saying that a poll would have to be taken to determine if women think they are helpless.

Re: Sexism and America
 

So by supporting the peace movement, a woman may therefore be considered 'helpless' because she does not employ her Glock?

The fact that women are not required in the draft is only a recent subject. Historically, read about women's rights throughout the world, or hell, even watch some of the more recent movies to make the theatres: women did NOT always want to be left on the wayside. Moreover, I believe (and hey, this is just from observation of literature) that men did not want women on battlefields because they believed themselves to be superior. Men have started many wars, and men have finished them.

Now, you are polling to see if women are helpless - where does this fit in? There have been women throughout the ages, not just recently, that did not consider themselves helpless. It was only until the 1900's in a free and democratic society that women would be allowed to convene and agree to lobby for the vote. What you are even referring to is a time period where women who wore pants were considered corrupt... Their accomplishment, considering the social stigmas and the consequences from society at that time period, is amazing.

If you want a discussion about the draft, have a discussion about the draft. Especially if you are going to be the instigator, don't make this into a 'Mike hates that women have the vote' argument. You may not be trying to send that message at all, but the angry and ignorant ways you are expressing yourself are making you come off offensively. Maybe that IS your objective.

Re: Sexism and America
 

Staying on Topic: In my opinion, women should be just as eligible for the draft as men, however I don't believe in the draft in the first place.

To the Current Discussion: I don't see myself fighting for minors to be drafted, therefore should I not be properly represented by my government?

Re: Sexism and America
 

No, it doesn't make her helpless. It does make her complacent to the reason she has the right to support a peace movement. The deaths of soldiers to fight for her freedom.

Well the poll never mentioned women being helpless. It simply asked if women should be required to register for the draft.

The idea that women are helpless was an idea that I created in post #19. Personally, I don't believe they are helpless. However, if you don't support women registering for the draft, the logical reasoning behind it is probably because you think women are helpless. Can you think of another reason why women should not register for the draft? That viewpoint is offensive, and I am open for a change in my reasoning if someone could explain why it is not true.

Yes, I am the instigator. I do occasionally enjoy taking a viewpoint on an argument for the sole purpose of seeing how effective I can argue it. I think I did a pretty decent job unless someone can explain in a reasonable manner, without personal attacks, and with actual points why women should not be required to register for the draft.

Like I said before, I don't actually believe that women should be denied the right to vote or hold office. However, consider the following scenario: the porche owners club is set to decide the name of the new porsche. The negative side of being in the porsche owners club is that you have to buy a porsche to join. Should someone's vote who is not part of the club be treated equally to someone who is not in the club? Club members would probably not enjoy having the same rights and voting power as someone not in the club. If you think about it, you can make a connection between that possoble scenario, and my arguement in post #19.

If I seem offensive, it's only because people don't like the truth. The truth is that women aren't required to register for the draft and the reasoning behind it is most likely prejudiced and many would find offensive. Or to reiiterate what I said before, are there any good reasons why women should not be required to register for the draft?

Re: Sexism and America
 

That's correct, you are not properly represented in goverment because you are a minor. When you turn 18, you will be properly represented when you are given the right to vote. Until then, you will be represented by men who have registered for the draft and women who are not required to.

Off-topic to this post, but an interesting article: Ann Quindlen: Women Should Have to Register for the Draft, Just Like Men

Re: Sexism and America
 

It's always effective to start your argument by establishing your superiority with a personal attack.

Let's throw in an assumption of my personal beliefs too.

There's another assumption. I do not believe that the only way of defending a freedom is by the use of violence. Martin Luther King effectively faught for the rights of African Americans without using violence.

I never said they didn't do anything to defend their freedom.

Personal attack #2, without even having a valid point.

Perhaps she could not be conscripted, but she could voluntarily enlist.

Obviously, Rosa Parks would not have been effective if she used violence. In the United States, violence is not an effective means of establishing a point. If Rosa Parks did what she did in other countries of the world she would have been dragged behind the bus. We are a civilized people, we logicly evaluate arguments. We use a representative goverment to maintian order in the country. Other countries use fear and violence to keep their citzens in check.

The men and women of Congress were put into place to represent their people, because they are much wiser than you or I. They have already served their time as possible draftees. You're not really suggesting that they shouldn't decide what we due with our military simply because they are too old or handicaped to participate are you?

I don't think what happened on 9/11 was a phantom incident, do you? The United States is being targeted by terrorists, we must use all the power we have to stop them.

A valid point, so a court case could not change the draft, but electing the appropriate people into congress would. Doesn't congress represent the will of the people? Couldn't a feminist movement cause the members of congress to change the draft rules? If it could, why aren't we seeing that happen as talks of the first draft in the 21st century begin?

OK, so you are earning your right to vote by personally attacking me on the CD forum. Fair enough, I'll earn my right to vote by registering for the draft, risking personal safety, and ensuring you have the liberty to embarass me.

You are a smart person and very elegant with your use of the English language (much more than I). If you want to make a valid argument, please explain to me why women should not be required to register for the draft. And if they should not, why they should still have the right to vote.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. There are women in the armed services. Women do put their lives on the line to protect America, this isn’t some task that only men perform. Also, it’s not just the armed forces that continue to keep America free. I would argue that the House of Representatives (which passes the laws permitting military spending) and the percentage of the American public that votes regularly (since we elect our representatives to the House of Representatives) also keeps America free. I think that women are as responsible for America’s safety as the chauvinistic male population has allowed them to be. It’s not like women have been arguing to be kept off of the front lines in wars. I’m sure it has been the butch male dominated military brass that’s afraid of women / homosexuals proving themselves to be straight men’s equals in battle.

Why is it that so many people only see violence and conflict as the answer to everything? Why don’t people look for the root of the “evil,” or what I think would more accurately be described as hatred or jealousy? The people who hate us have been raised in extremely poor conditions with very limited, sometimes false, and most likely biased (usually of the zealous religious kind) education. These people live off of less than each of us spends for our lunch drink per day. Why don’t we rectify this problem, and try to help give these poor people a decent education, proper nourishment, and at least a sleeping bag to sleep in. I strongly believe that if America would drastically increase funding for programs like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps and give them this mission that in 100 years there will not be as much disdain for our country. Yes, America has donated $5 billion to African AIDS programs, but $5 billion is less than half of the annual contribution under the Clinton administration (President Bush has cut funding to programs that provide abortions and contraception instead of promoting abstinence). $5 billion dollars is also a drop in the bucket compared to America’s annual budget. If we remain the arrogant, greedy, and self-serving country that we are at the moment then we just allow this hatred to snowball even more and additionally endanger ourselves.

You’re mistaken. The American judicial system and United States Trustees codes have helped MBNA repossess my neighbor’s car because they extended him a line of credit to buy the Geo Metro knowing full well he couldn’t make the payments. <facetiousness>I guess it makes sense that people making less than $25,000 per year should have a line of credit more than twice that much</facetiousness>. The US Trustee refuses to accept that there is such a thing as “Predatory Lending,” just like President Bush isn’t convinced that Global Warming exists.

We may have helped some countries in need, but not because of some noble “people must be free” ideal. We have removed dictators and foreign armies because they do not fit into our plans. In the case of the Gulf War, given a choice between a Kuwaiti run Kuwait and an Iraqi run Kuwait, we chose a Kuwaiti government because they were more pro-American. Do we have a right to tell other countries who should rule them? I don’t think so. If we set the precedent of one country overthrowing another’s government then what’s preventing us from being on the receiving side of this treatment when our military isn’t “the strongest in the world?”

Being a world superpower, we have the ability to draw a moral line that clearly shows where we stand on how we treat other countries, how we treat prisoners of war, and how we treat everyone in general. It’s disgusting, saddening, and angering to see Americans being beheaded, burned, and mutilated on television and in other media, but we need to show ourselves to be better than that. We need to give our prisoners food, toilets, and a FAIR AND PUBLIC trial with access to attorneys. Treating others the way they treat us gets us nowhere. We must earn the respect of the world by having more humane procedures and treatments of our prisoners. For example, if we continue to abuse Iraqis then what right do we have to ask China or North Korea to stop their human rights abuses? <edit>We should never settle for just treating others only how they treat us. Despite the atrocities commited against us there is no justification for "sinking to their level"</edit>. We need to show the utmost respect to the rest of the world. The job of stamping out hatred in the third world is a job that would take forever if we tried it alone. We need the blessing and assistance, monetary and personnel, of other superpowers (England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and Australia) to accomplish this daunting goal within the next 100 or 200 years. We can’t afford to piss them off more than we already have.

Registering for the draft during a time without a draft does no more to serve your country than not registering. There is no draft. There will not be a draft in the foreseeable future. What if there was a draft and your number and my number weren’t called? We didn’t serve our country in battle, yet you would argue that we should be allowed to retain our right to vote. The only guaranteed way to serve your country in battle is to volunteer for the armed forces (and that’s assuming we’ve decided to go topple a country or are still in the process or occupying one). You and I are in no more jeopardy of being impressed into the armed services than Lisa Perez, Amanda Morrison, LauraN, a breezy era, or any of the other women on these boards. You and I shouldn’t have more rights as a citizen than these politically passionate women. If so, then we’re starting multiple castes of American citizenship. How will that work? One pays taxes, another one doesn’t, one has mandatory military service, another doesn’t, one can vote, another can’t, one can work for the FBI, and another can’t? What’s next? Will one caste be allowed to procreate, and another not?

I wouldn’t make that assumption. There are many lobbies in Washington D.C. that aren’t publicized very well.

I’m not arguing that women should be prevented from being drafted. I think most of us believe that men and women should be treated equally. I do take exception to your assertion that because women are not registered to be drafted that they should not have the right to vote or hold elected office. Why should men who have not been drafted or otherwise served in the military have the right to vote and hold elected office and women who haven’t been drafted be excluded? Is it because we filled out some form that they didn’t?

Another point I’d like to bring up is that many of our best, and the world’s best, politicians and philosophers did not serve in the military. Should we exclude these people from being able to serve our country in their more natural capacity because they didn’t first serve it with a weapon? Inclusion of ideas is much better than exclusion.

Porsche is a privately owned company. The club doesn't decide on the names. Not even the shareholders decide on the names. I don’t think your analogy works.

Mike, I think that was a little out of line. First of all, there is no truth in your argument because it’s opinion. Truth has to do with correct or falseness. People may think you’re offensive because they don’t like your opinions. This is not the same as not liking the truth. Saying that people might be offended at what you you’ve said because they don’t like the truth makes you sound much more arrogant than I think you intended. I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to sound like that when you originally wrote that, but I think a little double checking word selection is in order.

So could you. So could I. We haven’t (at least I don’t think you have). How are we serving our country more than a woman who hasn’t voluntarily enlisted? We aren’t.

The US government has done its fair share of using fear and violence against its citizens to keep them in check. Japanese Internment camps? Kent State? There are many examples that can counter that statement.

First of all, no, not all congresspersons are smarter than us. Don’t ever assume that people in high places are smarter than you and know what they’re doing. Each congressperson is directly elected by their district, which means that just about anyone with name recognition could win a House district.

Yes they have lived past their draftable days. But again, if they (men) didn’t serve in the armed forces then they haven’t served their country anymore than a woman of the same age. If you only want people who have been draftable in office then President Bush would certainly have his right to vote taken away (since he was enlisted in the National Guard at the time. Btw, the National Guard during the Vietnam War was a way of AVOIDING combat; not volunteering ahead of conscripts like it is today.).

We haven’t been conscripted yet, and there’s a very, very, very, very slim chance we ever will be. At this moment we are as much in harms way as the women of this country who aren’t already in the armed forces. You and I aren’t protecting anyone’s way of life other than by exchanging our ideas (which is a much underrated form of protecting our country). The only way you and I have earned our votes is by virtue of turning 18 and registering ourselves, the same way women earn theirs. It’s the law we live by, and there’s almost no chance of it changing.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I apologize for my use of wordage in post 20 :(. I did not mean it all to seem like we were polling America to determine whether or not women were "helpless", but rather, if the women felt they should not be involved in conscription, in general. I, as a female, would never create a poll which asked the general public if we were helpless - sorry for the confusion, not good at this word thing.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

As long as we're on the subject of an effective goverment, and the role of women within that effective government, I'd like to show you a few links. (Warning: there may be a few disturbing images.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3731081.stm

I'd like to point out that these terrible images of abuse in the prisons of Iraq do, in fact, show women. I'm stating this mainly because there are women in the military - we've been treating this issue as if every girl just got up and left her camoflage behind. There are women in the military, doing the same exact things as men do (and hopefully being tried for it, also). Were these women drafted? No. There's a pretty good chance that these men weren't, either. The draft hasn't been instated since 1973, and since then, we've been to war. In fact, in this article (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...042304,00.html), they'd rather do away with the draft than have to send people needlessly away to war.

Now, as much as I resented comments about the peace movement, I couldn't believe that the main reason given was that the Women's Movement was supported by the 'soldiers who fight for their freedom'. I suppose that, in that time period, was very much the case - we are still a relatively new country, but we now know our boundaries and limits. I'd like to bring forth a small reminder:

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0800/...0801_0135.html

WWII was a terrible, brutal war. The women of that time period, having only had the vote for a few years, were enlisted in their own way. Through propaganda and media, the government chose not to draft women, but to put them to use in America, rather than also suffer their lives. Instead, the economy shot through the roof, and almost singlehandedly, American women kept the country alive and running. I still remember hearing stories of my grandmother going to work in the steel mills in her teens.

Where the government could have employed the draft to women (and note that this was after the Women's Movement had already gained fair representation and the vote), they instead gave them the lightweight task of keeping a country moving. The ammunitions, the textiles, even the rations that were given to the soldiers at that time were possibly products from an American woman's second or third job.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

May I make one very very simple request?

For the sake of this not ending up screwed (it's getting there), please please please EVERYONE refrain from personal attacks. The best things that I've read so far are people replying with information and justification, not the personal attacks. Those just stick out and look foolish and unnecessary. If we can't avoid personal attacks on a forum populated by far less than 1% of the national population, on a post followed by less than 1% of even that, how can we except people at any national level to avoid attacking one another in the name of pride? Yes, it's unrelated to the subject, but I think it needs to be said. I apologize myself if I offended anyone, I had no intention of doing so.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Hello everybody,

I am very impressed by this thread. The way it is being run mostly expresses a possibility for fair and open debate on the Chiefdelphi forums, something which several people have alleged is impossible. I hope that in the future on this thread, people will not attack each other personally. Other than that, good and informed opinions are being expressed.

I am impressed by the citations to relevant laws, policies, and Supreme Court cases. And I am also very impressed by the abundance of good grammar, something rare on the Internet, even around these parts.

Good job and keep on posting!

Sexism Sexism Sexism.
 

I feel the smallest twinge of regret that some think that I’ve resorted to “personal attacks” in what I’ve written here – but it’s only a small twinge, really. The sentiment being defended here is bigoted and sexist and hateful and it’s being defended solely by Mike Dubreuil – so, as far as I’m concerned, this has everything to do with him and is very personal. I have every intent of calling his character and motivation into question alongside his ideas. Both are in dire need of examination, so any attempt at trying to dissuade me from writing more or from censoring myself will be fruitless. Likewise, attempts at discrediting my arguments by framing them as a “personal attack” – as if it’s some negative sort of thing – will surely be overlooked.

Mike – I have no doubt that I’m far, far superior to you and people like you. I believe in equality for all people and I have the intelligence and hindsight to understand the struggles these groups face; something you’ve continued to show a lack of insight toward.

You wrote previously, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office.”

So, again, you have concluded that women are not worthy of the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as you. What about that is an assumption about your presumed superiority, exactly? It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Of course, I’m not surprised that the backpedaling you’ve begun will continue as you go off trying to pretend that you haven’t expressed such sentiment. I see it already when you post little disclaimers at the end of your writing trying to absolve yourself of responsibility for the opinions you present. In the real world, disclaimers are useless and little more than a useful indication of how scared you are of being held accountable for your actions.

You later write, “I don't think women should be forced into the serving the military, I also don't think they should lose their ability to participate in the government.” So, you feel that we shouldn’t lose our ability to participate in government, but that we don’t deserve it in the first place? I think that the only person hoping I’ve made any assumptions about your beliefs is you.

Since you seem to be a bit absent-minded about the bigotry you were so vehemently defending yesterday, let me remind me you that you wrote, once again, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office. I find it interesting that women want equal rights; yet, they don't have to be a part of the draft.”
You followed that with, “This thread is about women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms.” So, let’s take a moment to deconstruct these statements and connect the dots, okay?

You’ve argued that women are undeserving of the right to vote and the right to hold public office because, as you go on to say, they are denied access to conscription by existing laws that violate a whole pile of other laws and amendments. You follow up by arguing, repeatedly, that military service is the only way people have ever defended our freedoms with remarks akin to, “Unfortunately, the feminist [sic] all to [sic] easily forget that it's America's soldiers and war [sic] who have given them the rights they enjoy today.”

So, which is it, Mike? Do you believe that those who’ve taken civil action to combat injustice are preserving our freedom? Are they doing a lesser job of it than those who take up arms against other people? You’ve acknowledged the contributions of Martin Luther King Jr., but you seem to be denying that his effort were just as, if not more, effective than the military campaigns of – oh, let’s say the Cuban Missile Crisis – the last military action to directly endanger the United States. I can’t help but have mountains more respect for people who accomplish change without resorting to violence, and I’m far more interested in defending and preserving their memory than I am in honoring those who volunteer to kill people or those who force others to kill people without their consent.

You’re content in earning your right to vote by filling out some paperwork and receiving federal financial aid for your college education, but a woman has to earn her right to vote by enlisting in the military and proving she’s equal to men, by your logic, since sexist bigots have blocked her ability to sign up for conscription in the first place. Here’s a newsflash, Mike – that pesky little idea about women proving their equality is inherently sexist. We don’t have to prove anything to men, especially you, because you’re not superior in any way. Deal with it.

Those heathens! Nowhere in America will you find someone dragged behind a truck for four miles because of their race or tied to a fence and left to die because of their sexual orientation.

Why is that more ridiculous than suggesting that women shouldn’t have the right to vote about issues that affect them because they cannot participate in conscription as well?

You’ve said that women should lobby Congress to change Department of Defense policies and allow them access to the draft, while arguing that they should be denied the right to vote because they’re not participating in government in a way you agree with. If women cannot vote, no congressman will act upon their lobby because it offers absolutely no political advantage. You’ve perverted the essential notion of freedom – the ability to act with autonomy without fear of repercussions – by suggesting that those who disagree with your notion of what’s right, just, and necessary be denied the same opportunities as you. The slaves, at least, had the Three-Fifths Compromise, but you seem unwilling to provide women with even that much respect.

I don’t believe that most of the military action the United States has engaged in in the past three years has any relevance nor positive impact upon preventing events like those that took place on September 11, 2001. I do believe, however, that a war-mongering political administration used “fear and violence” following those attacks to further is militaristic agenda. There are tomes on this message board about the conflict in Iraq, in particular, and I’ve written plenty about why I disagree with that action. If you care to educate yourself, go read it. I’m not repeating myself for your benefit.

I’ve already established that you’re attempting to penalize a group for voting in ways you don’t agree with by trying to deny them the right to vote at all – an action not unlike those that sought to disenfranchise African Americans after the Civil War. You must be unaware of the “Jim Crow” laws that required African Americans be able to read before being allowed to vote. Those laws were created by the same people who, in years prior, denied those African Americans – living as slaves – freedom and education. How, then, could any of those former slaves be expected to pass a literacy test when they’d previously been denied all opportunities to educate themselves?

You’re arguments are nothing more than modern-day Jim Crow laws, Mike. You are no better than the racists that sought unabashedly and without remorse to maintain the irreverent and immoral race hierarchy in this country during Reconstruction. Sorry.
Not once have I stated a position on whether women should be required to register for conscription, nor do I intend to. Instead, I have focused on explaining precisely why your attempts at equating military service with earning our rights is flawed, sexist, bigoted, misinformed and completely ridiculous. I’ll be happy to continue focusing on those attempts until you can provide some evidence that you’re not a misogynistic, sexist fool.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Mabey this would be a good time to move this thread to the moderated discussion section. IMHO this would be a good time for a 3rd, non-sided party, to review and look over the posts before they post it.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

It'd be a particularly good time to move it to moderated discussion if you want to insure that I no longer participate. I will not submit my discussions to moderation because people think that I'm a bit more upset about this than they'd like me to be.

Edit: I'm done with trying to defend the work of the myriad activists and progressive Americans who've done so much to avoid violence and effect change, even in the face of those who would see them silenced and ignored. There's very little more that I can say that I haven't already said and the upset and stress that this is causing me is only serving to shorten my future in FIRST -- something I've tried hard to avoid for the past few years.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I think it's fine, for now. If things get rough, we'll move it after.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

There are women in the armed services, no question about it. They are there by choice. My question is why the feminists have argued for all the rights they have received but have stopped short of registering for a military draft.

The answer to “everything” is a double-edged sword. On one side there's violence, on the other there's humanitarianism. The trouble is that both are very expensive. We only have so much money in our budget and have to use it wisely.

Since we have the strongest military in the world, the world sees us as “the” military for the United Nations. Which causes many in America to seriously question our UN involvement. Either way, we can't just drop our military budget, there's too many people out to kill US citizens.

Humanitarianism, is just as expensive if not more. Not to mention, just because you're nice doesn't mean people will automatically be nice to you. A big question right now is whether the Iraqi people can even handle a democracy, they live totally differently than US citizens and may not be able to adapt. Seriously, we haven't even stopped to consider whether they even want a democracy, we just feel it's the best form of government.

On Iraq, the US can't leave until all the radicals are controlled, or the new Iraqi government can control the radicals on their own. In Iraq, we're seeing most problems stemming out of radical Islam, rather than a new democracy.

Iraq is a perfect example of why humanitarianism would not work. Their lives are not run by government, but by their religion. Iraqis want us to pull out of Iraq not because we are not benefiting them, more because there are Christians in their Islamic Holy Land. They don't care about the food, clothes or schools they don't want us there because the US is viewed as a “Christian Force” telling Islams what to do. In the United States, we have separation of Church and State. In many countries around the world religion is intimately tied with the government as it is in the Middle East.

Well that's the benefit of being the most powerful nation in the world. If we see wrong we can change it. That doesn't mean that we fix all the problems of the world, but we try to fix some of them. I would rather help other nations and fix the problems with the world rather than be completely neutral like Sweden.

Whether you feel you serve your country by registering for the draft is determined by how important you feel the draft is. One mission of the Selective Service is to “to provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency.”

I don't quite understand how you can say we won't be using the draft for the foreseeable future because the draft is used in emergencies. How can you predict emergencies?

Tomorrow, Iran could invade Iraq, Pakistan could invade Afghanistan and China could be sending troops to California. We would have a national emergency on our hands. The draft would be started and you and I could be holding M4A1 assault riffles by the end of the week. You can't predict when evil will strike and what emergencies will bring.

The draft is an important tool in our arsenal to protect the freedoms of the United States. My best friend and I made a pact. If the United States called a draft we would go to our hometown of Enfield, Connecticut and enlist with a local recruiter. If the US needed people in the military badly enough to call a draft, we must serve to protect ourselves, our family, our friends and our country. To me, and I'm sure many Americans the draft is a very serious and important process.

Like I said before, the draft is a very important tool in protecting the United States. If the draft wasn't around, you can't blame the individual. However, if the draft was around, and they hid from it, I find it a little more difficult to respect them.

The analogy works if you kept in mind that part of the criteria for the analogy was that Porsche was allowing the Porsche Owner's Club to decide the name of the new car.

You are completely correct, when you take that sentence out of context I sounded out of line, offensive, and arrogant. However, if you include the whole paragraph, particularly this part: “The truth is that women aren't required to register for the draft and the reasoning behind it is most likely prejudiced and many would find offensive.” Then the sentence doesn't sound so bad.

Perhaps it is my opinion that the reason women aren't included in the draft is offensive. I would be welcome to here any other opinions as to the reason women are not allowed to serve in the draft.

To fully answer the question I just asked you have to tackle the real issue which the Department of Defense claims is the reason women are not allowed in front line combat.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I will not enter this thread. I will not enter this thread. I will not enter this thread.

::enters thread::

D'oh!

I'm going to be frank here: I didn't read all the posts. Especially once the personal attacks started. So I'll just point things out as I go.

Okay, viewpoint #1: the "all things being equal" viewpoint. If you truly believe all things are equal, then women should be allowed in the draft. Of course, all things aren't equal; it's just life. But in this case, men and women are essentially equal.

Viewpoint #2: the "women aren't as physically capable" viewpoint. In some cases, this may be a valid point (although I personally don't believe it). But if it was, then we wouldn't have women volunteering for military service.

Viewpoint #3: the "combine viewpoints 1 & 2" viewpoint. Simply put, you can't have it both ways. Which is why I personally think women shouldn't have their own sports leagues. They should be playing with the men. But now I'm getting off topic.

Back on topic, in our world violence solves everything (just ask the people of Carthage, Constantinople, and Hiroshima). And unfortunately, it always will. It's simply our human nature. That being said, if there is something I believe in, I will fight for it, using violence if necessary (although only after every other means is exhausted). Of course, you can flip-flop that. If I don't believe in it, I won't fight for it. And I refuse to be forced to do so. It's simply un-American and wrong. I'll get right to the point and say I don't believe in our country's actions. My answer to the question: women should not be in the draft. Plain and simple. Oh yeah, this is an unfair question since I also believe men should not be in the draft. If people want to fight and they believe in the cause, power to them. But if you are so low on reserves that you need to draft, it's because you're short on volunteers. And if you're short on volunteers, then most likely you're running things badly enough where the people don't believe in the cause.

Wow, I've quoted Heinlein twice today.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

:D Yeah!

I said 'yes' on the premise that men were drafted. But I really agree on both points. (solution: get a job as a mechanic for the UAVs. You're less likely to get active duty.)

Re: Sexism Sexism Sexism.
 

It's imporant to make a distinction between my beliefs and my arguments in this thread. You may think I'm backpedaling, I'm not. When I started the thread I fuly intended to support my view point until the end. I would be lying if I said I wasn't hoping you would participate in this thread.

My Beliefs:
I believe that women should not have to be a part of the draft. If they would like to participate in the military they can volunteer. They should even be able to volunteer for front line combat positions. Women should also be able to vote regardless on whether they are registered for the draft or have volunteered in the military.

My Argument in the Thread:
My hope was that we could have an intelligent discussion of this. Why should a woman receive the benefit of voting, if she has no military responsibility?

I've seen an argument that says the reason they haven't registered for the draft is because they can't. The feminist movement has given women all of the positive benifets of male US citizens, why haven't they asked for the negative ones? Or more specifically to this thread, why haven't you said you personally would accept a military responsibilty? You don't mind having the freedoms of a US citizen as long as other people (read: men) die.

I don't understand how it's bigoted, sexist, and hateful if all I'm looking for is for you to agree on equality. Is it not equal for drafted men and drafted women to stand next to each other and bare arms during a war?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

[OFF TOPIC]

While I have never met you or know if you have any other reasons for possibly leaving FIRST this shouldn't be a reason to drive you (or anyone) away. In FIRST and other aspects of life you will have disagreements and run into "bad apples" but you shouldn't allow that to get in the way of what YOU want or believe in. If we all ran away or gave up when things got tough we wouldn't get anywhere.

[OFF TOPIC]

I find this an interesting topic and hope we all remain civil and stay on course with the original topic so it doesn't become moderated or worse......

Re: Sexism Sexism Sexism.
 

First of all, I'd like to thank Mike for making a statement of his beliefs. I hope this will serve as a catalyst to the discussion, because it will hopefully stop the comments on "someone believes this, someone believes that." I also pass on to M. Krass that I hope you would stay in the thread, because your political passion, as Bill Gold words it, would be much much missed (sincerely so.)

I believe that neither should be drafted (kudos to those who have said it) but that is not the object of my post. Please understand that the rest of this is based on that belief. I do however understand his thought process of women should have the right to volunteer at frontlines. To share a personal story, a good friend of mine is in the US Army and truly desires to fight on the front lines. Army is a family tradition for her, and she enjoys and cherishes this tradition. Just because no feminist movement has risen in the public eye to protest the lack of female involvement in frontlines, doesn't mean they don't want to be there. Before a movement rose up to protest lack of voting rights, many women wanted them. Please understand that women as a whole are not a feminist movement: we are individuals who may not always have access to demonstrations, but are more than willing to unite for a cause. That is the only correction I have.

The other reason for posting this is a request for Mike to explain the connection between military service and government rights. The connection screams "devils advocate" to me, but as a reasonable request I would like to ask that it be carefully explained. I am not "unjustifying" his question, if that's a word, I am merely asking for a clarification.

I agree on the case that if we must must be drafted, we should bare arms together. However, what is hindering this? Men and women bare arms together everywhere discluding the front lines. I imagine that in time, just as before, a new movement will rise up and fend of this restriction and then Mike will be happy and the women who have the will to just as the men who have the will to will have the opportunity to fight on the front line, in place of teenagers and 20-somethings who just want to graduate and go home.

Re: Sexism Sexism Sexism.
 

Such things have been said about racism, too.

Of couse, it should be well known by now that the military isn't ready for women. And when I say that, I don't mean the Pentagon. I mean the fighters themselves. They act like big high schoolers sometimes. (remember the boys locker-room jokes? think big locker room.) Like the recent prison incedents in Iraq. And how about officers raping subordinates? (she under orders from him, of course)

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Military service and voting rights (or citizenship) have been connected to each other since the ancient Greek city states. The Athenian city state required that all voting men had to serve in the military if need be. They fought for their way of life. The right of voting has since been given in other civilizations / countries to noncombatant members of society, as well, for other valid reasons like taxation (“no taxation without representation”). But we’ve omitted those reasons in this discussion and focused on military service and eligibility of being drafted. <edit>I may, however, bring some of these issues up in future posts.</edit>

I don’t see this as a question that requires an answer. At this point in time registering for the draft isn’t a necessary precondition for voting if you’re a man. Yes, we can be punished with a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison, but we do not lose our right to vote.

At this point in time I’d like to declare that being a woman is not a necessary precondition for being a feminist. In 1980 President Carter reinstated the registration of persons for possible draft purposes, and at that time he requested that congress amend the Military Selective Service Act to include women in the draftable pool. This request was not acted upon by the congress. Eventually Rostker v. Goldberg made its way to the Supreme Court and a decision stating that exclusion of women in the draft process wasn’t unconstitutional. I think that President Carter was politically ahead of his time in requesting that women be required along with men to register for the draft. He was a very socially conscious president, and continues today to be a voice of knowledge, experience, and reason.

I don’t think that the rest of the world sees the United States as the UN’s military. On the contrary, I believe that the rest of the world sees the UN as the United States’ tool for justifying doing whatever we want. We force resolutions through the UN that impose sanctions against other countries for things like human rights abuses which we ourselves commit. We have proven that we only care about the UN when they are on our side, but when they disagree with our proposed course of action (Iraq) we view the UN with insouciance. How can we expect other countries to abide by UN mandates/resolutions when we do not?

I’m not suggesting that we should eliminate our armed forces in favor of a strictly humanitarian mission throughout the world. I agree that there is a time and a place for war and that having a standing army is a good preventative step against an attack. But look at what we have done with $200 billion in Iraq. We’ve toppled a dictatorship, yes, but we’ve done very little to rebuild the country. We’re paying for the occupation, and not the rebuilding, education, job training, etc. that is needed to have any chance at stabilizing that country. We have also shown our country to hold grudges against others who oppose our actions (by preventing French, German, and Russian companies from bidding on reconstructive contracts in Iraq, and then offending them further by calling those countries part of “Old Europe”). After all of this and more we could talk about I don’t blame other people for wanting to kill us.

It may be more expensive up front, but in the long run the only other option that would better benefit our country would be to annihilate every square meter of the earth that we don’t want for ourselves. I don’t think any of us wants to kill innocent people just to make sure we get the ones who hate us. You can’t win a guerilla war against terrorism. You may be able to stop a few attacks and you may be able to kill a few terrorist leaders, but as long as people are oppressed and see their fellow humans being killed by the “evil empire” known as America, England, or Israel (to name a few) then there will be an endless supply of terrorists hell bent on instilling fear on us. This is why it’s necessary to curb this hatred by providing these people with an education and a standard of life that is enjoyable or good enough so that they do not hate us or feel jealous of our flamboyantly materialistic appearance. You’re right that these people will not automatically love us if we decide to pursue a humanitarian course. I will not make the mistake that our leadership did by proclaiming that these people will line the streets with rose petals for us. This process will take years and years to reap benefits from, and will only happen if we put forth an incredible effort.

I also do not believe in forcing a democratic government upon a country that does not want one. The people of Iraq are used to totalitarian dictatorships. They do not know what they have not experienced, and our country isn’t doing a good job of selling the idea of democracy to them. I doubt it will work.

With all due respect Mike, I believe that you are wrong here. This is where I pull out my trusty Statesman’s Yearbook: The essential political and economic guide to all the countries of the world. There is no doubt that the majority of Iraqis are one form of Muslim or another, but I believe that you are mistaken when you say that Iraqis want Americans out of their country because we have Christians among us. Yes Islam has been the state religion, but their old constitution stipulated the freedom of religion and the right to every religion to practice however they wanted. Iraq’s defense minister before our invasion was a Christian. This isn’t as much an Islam vs. Christianity conflict as people might think.

As for our own separation of church and state… While we may not officially name one particular form of Christianity our state religion, we might as well. “In God we trust” is a blatantly Judeo-Christian reference. Having “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance is another Judeo-Christian reference. The pledge especially ticks me off since the “under God” part was added in the mid-1900’s as a fruitless attempt at uncovering “Godless Communist” spies. The Alabama State Supreme Court chief justice had to have his statue of the 10 Commandments forcibly removed from the courthouse not one year ago. Separation between church and state is a myth in this country. It’s all too obvious that we are a Christian country no matter how much we claim not to be.

What problems have we fixed? We’ve rid two countries of dictatorships, and given them nothing but pseudo feudal warlord rule in Afghanistan and an endless occupation with no plan for self-sustaining government in Iraq. We “fix” things that only benefit us, and we only fix them enough so that we can get our cut and get out.

As I pull out my Statesman’s Yearbook again…

At least in Sweden has fixed their healthcare system so that all residents (citizen or not) receive whatever care they need, when they need it, and at no cost to the patient. That’s better than I can say for the USA.

Here’s a question for you. Should the draft be a proper means of raising an army for purely offensive reasons? Do you think that if we were going to unilaterally attack Nigeria for some reason that the draft would be a proper way to raise an army to carry out that mission? I, personally, don’t think it is. So this leads us to the idea that the draft is a last ditch way to raise an army purely for defense of our country. If Iran invaded Iraq or if Pakistan invaded Afghanistan this would not be an invasion of the United States (especially when we proclaim that we’re just over there as peacekeepers, and not occupying those countries as colonies of the United States. They supposedly have sovereignty.), and therefore would not be any cause for us to draft citizens to fight.

If China attacked the US (which socio-politically and economically would make no sense for them to do, but for the sake of argument we’ll use this example) there would be some advanced warning by radar, spy satellites, human intelligence inside China, or a formal declaration of war sent a month in advance (wishful thinking ;)). This kind of war is what our military has been built for, a war against a defined country. Our navy, army, and air force have the equipment and training needed to perform against this kind of opponent. It would be very foolish for a country to attack us, because they would be made short work of. I doubt that you or I would ever need to be called up to defend our country (not offensively fight for, because as stated before that’s not what drafts should be used for) unless all of the other superpowers team up against us (which could happen if we don’t stop pissing other countries off with our arrogance).

President Clinton, President Bush, VP Cheney, and the list could go on forever.

I don’t know about that. It doesn’t look much better with the context. It’s not that your message is offensive, it how it’s stated. Maybe it’s a problem with the written words not having proper intonation or tonal expressions, but I’ve read that a few times and can’t really find a way to read it that isn’t at least a little biting.

First of all, the commonly used term should be “registering for the draft” and not “serving in the draft.” Serving implies an actual service that you perform. You and I put our names and personal information into that system for our own personal reasons. Mine were to avoid the $250,000 fine and/or 5 year prison term, to be able to receive possible government financial aid, and to be able to apply for a government job in the future. You may have had different reasons for filling out that form, and more power to you if you did, but if your reason for filling out that form was to “serve your country” then you should have just enlisted in one way or another. If neither of us is drafted into service then neither of us is eligible to receive payment from the US armed forces. We are not performing a job for them, and therefore are not being paid. There is no service.

I’m glad you’ve taken up my suggestion from post #14 and asked why women shouldn’t be allowed into frontline combat. I take it that you agree with me that they should be every bit entitled to fight on the front lines as men. Go us!

Women die and suffer in war, too. They may not be on the “frontlines,” but there are female deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Just to add to this, the US has also placed many ruthless dictators into power because they claimed to be non-communist (i.e. Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, etc.)

Also, I think that this may be relevent, seeing as Congress has ammended including women in a possible draft:

Re: Women and the Draft
 

1. I am actually in the Army. So dont spew out some random trashy statements and try to pass them off as facts as if you know what you are talking about.

2. Draft? I cannot seriously believe that anyone even uses this word any more. There are more patriotic volunteers now than ever, for some reason, they believe that fighting a war in the sandbox is directly related to our own personal freedoms.

3. Since the Armed Forces are way too big to admit personell on a case-by-case basis, they have to rely on generalizations and the little certainties in life:
a. Despite what you see on Alias, a 110 lb female cannot kick down a door.
b. Generally, women have less muscle mass and endurance. So when it comes to carrying a wounded Soldier 5 kilometers to a safe and open space for a MEDEVAC before you get shot by local rebels, I would put my money on a male.
c. There are all sorts of...well...medical issues that present themselves when women are in the field too long.


So, as you can see, I am sexist when it comes to women in combat. But, I work with lots of women in the Army and most of them are close to being as competent as I am in my job field. So I really have no problem with women defending their nation.

Again, back to the 'draft' issue. The only reason the US would draft is if we needed millions of bullet sponges like in vietnam and ww2. Women, while generally smaller targets, and able to tolerate higher levels of pain, do not make good infantry. Feminists are smart so I think they would realize this. Dont you?

So, inserting a meaningless clause in some dusty legislation to make women 'equal' doesnt really make much sense to me.


Good Game

Re: Women and the Draft
 

That definitely made me think things through again.
I believe points A and B would require a physical exam though. As long as those tests were passed than, I do not see that being a problem. I tend to not believe test results of any sort though, so I am still up in the air.


I am not sure if this is the right thing to do but:
I am going to take Mike?s side of the debate.
I follow his reasoning perfectly. I am not going to reiterate it; you can read it for yourself.

Soezgg is the first person to argue why women should not be allowed in the draft. It seems that most everybody who has posted has supported women in the draft. The debate about whether they should be there or not has been overlooked.

If I am wrong about this, it?s probably because I quickly skimmed many of the long posts between Bill and Mike.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

i havent yet read all the posts in the thread, but they are quite interesting...

anyways, as a person about to enter the military, let me first start out by saying i am completely against the draft. i believe that the current status of the US military with its voluntary status is a good thing, and helps both with morale (knowing the person next to you wants to be there, instead of being unsucessful in dodging the draft) and oveall quality for pretty much the same reason.

i have seen things and heard rumors about bush setting up things so a draft can go as soon as 2005 after elections. as for whether or not a woman should be drafted, why yes, i believe in womans equality, not for giving them special freedoms over other people (please dont even get me started on the rape shield laws in certain parts of the country)...but women can perfrom non-combatant jobs in the military, i believe some figure thats at least over 50% of the military doesnt have combatant jobs. not sure, but i'll check with my recruiter later.

anyways, those are my 2 cents with interest, and well, on a lighter note, no more school after tommorow, or today rather.....its sad to miss first, but i hope i can get back into the program someday.....

night everyone...

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Good job pryoplasm. I definitly agree with you on that one. Those who wish to join the army do it on a voluntary basis (at this point in time) and I welcome the 2 people to this post who have mentioned being in the army/about to be in the army. It will be good to see the other side of this case argued. I like the morale point. However, just to move along discussion, in the state it is today, how do you feel that morale would be affected if women were drafted, and further placed into front lines? Do you think the "woman" question is a major issue for you as a future army person? I'm just interested. Thanks! - Genia

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Without question the morale of a volunteer army is much better than a drafted one. However, the whole point of the draft is that there are not enough volunteers in the military. We either expand the number of troops or lose.

I don't really buy the argument that if our administration was doing a good job then we would have an abundant supply of volunteers. I firmly believe in what the president is doing with the military; but you're not going to see me drop out of college and voluntarily enroll without a draft. The parents are paying for college now, who knows what happens 5 years down the road when I return from duty. I guess the argument could be made that I could just drop out of college then enroll and use the money I get from the goverment to finance my education. Military service isn't my calling in life, but that doesn't mean during desperate times I won't perform some type of military duty. Volunteer military service is for people who: need the money for college, is a familly tradition, or are bored with the working a minimum wage job after leaving high school.

Since I fall under none of those categories, I currently attend college.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

To what are you referring? Yes it's true that you would have more accurate information about the amry than we civilians, but you haven't told us what part of our information is incorrect.

I may be wrong, so let me present the question to you, since you would know better than me: don't you need to pass a physical exam and meet certain physical requirements before serving? If this is true, generalizations are irrelevant.


Why do you hold this view? Because of the size and strength differences? Even if it isn't true that physical requirements must be met, wouldn't the advantages and disadvantages balance each other out, at least somewhat? I'm not trying to disagree with you, necessarily, I'm just looking for a more explicit explanation of your views.

I personally do not see any reason to forbid women from serving in infantry. Yes there are physical differences, but generalizations apply to men as well as women. On a case-by-case basis, there are men who are weaker than women. How could you permit them to enter the army yet forbid a woman of similar characteristics based solely on gender? Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of America? That as long as an individual meets the requirements and possesses the necessary characteristics and skills, he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I'm not going to quote anyone, because I think that's dumb.

Little does everyone know, there are DIFFERENT STANDARDS for men and women in the military. While women have over 21 minutes to run two miles on their physical training test, men have only 15 minutes and 43 seconds. While women have to do only 17 pushups, men have to do 47. These are only examples, but as you can see, it would be easy for weak people of both sexes, but the weaker male is still much stronger than a weak female.

I am not going to trust that a woman will be able to have the physical strength and endurance to perform in situations where peoples lives are in danger.

This is exactly why women are not currently allowed to be in the Military Occupational Specialty of 11B (INFANTRY).

And again, on the DRAFT issue. The draft would only happen if the US needed millions of bullet sponges (infantry) so women are not needed.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Edit: Many of the below things are the exact same as what soezgg said up above due to the fact I had chores and clicked the Reply button a good 15 min after I wrote the following...

No, he argued that women should not serve in the infantry due to natural, physical differences (generally).

You're definitely correct, Laura. But as Steve and I discussed on one of his trips back to Ithaca, the physics fitness tests (PT test for short) for men and women in the army are absolutely different in their standards of performance. Both tests require the person to do the same things, but the standards for females are set much lower than for men. Is this sexist or rather, is this based on general physical capability difference between a male and female (thus supporting soezgg's argument about carrying a wounded soldier for 5 km)? I googled the below site, which gives you information about the two tests. For the male test, I'd be fine for pushups/situps but I would have to run a lot more to get in shape for the 2-mile run. However, I could do the female test right now if you asked me to.

http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-20/Ch14.htm

Regarding my thoughts on the initial thread subject - I would fully support drafting both men and women. It is not fair to exclude one group when both are legally guranteed the same rights. As Mike argued, if you have the same rights, you have to be subjected to the same service. Nonetheless, as already mentioned, physical deficiencies may prevent infantry service - but that does not prevent working in other ways in the army. There are cooks (first non-combat position that came to mind - don't accuse me of being sexist), office workers, etc. But when I think about having women in infantry, I'm unsure. Even if the PT test standards were the same for both groups, I would have to think long and hard about including women in the fight.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Please refrain from comments that will discredit your personage, and have no relevance in light of the thread. The fact that you did not quote someone sends the message that you are not doing so, you have no need to state it in an immature way.

I know almost nothing about the army, but I knew that they have different requirements. Does the fact that women have more time to pass a physical test make them less apt at doing so? For example, in the sport of swimming Men's times are a bit speedier than women's, maybe a few seconds for state cuts. Just because a woman of a certain age group has more leeway as to how fast she goes, it does not mean she is incapable of obtaining a certain level. A woman that can pass a men's cut is stronger than a man who can't pass a men's cut, by your definition I'm assuming.

If women felt they did not have the ability to save their friends lives, I do not think they would risk their friends lives by joining in the military. Purdue has a very active ROTC program that did a demonstration at a convocation I attended. A very small woman, maybe 5'3" (my heightish) was able to carry a much larger man for more than a good deal than I'd imagine of most individuals.

Once again, I'd ask that you be more detailed in your explanations. According to recruiters that have come to our school and various events, a gigantic majority of army personel do not fight on front lines. With the many soldeirs that would be sent to a draft, the need for personel to take care of mechanical and health issues would increase expontentially. Yes, women are just as capable at these jobs. I'm sure even the people who don't want them on the front lines and wrote the laws can understand that by now due to the increase in female inlistment since we were permitted to enlist.

Please explain your posts carefully and be cordial, for everyone's sake. I have no intention of insulting you with this reply, I just wish to clarify some points that may counter your evidence. Please feel free to prove me wrong, I'd welcome it.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

to quickly answer that, yes there is a physical, and you must meet certain requirements, but pretty much if you can walk to the MEPS building, you are going to pass the physical...

and as for women in the infantry, i personally dont know any women qualified to go in, but if they could, i would welcome the day.

but to be fair, there are males who do not qualify for infantry duty as well. and besides, not everyone registered for the draft get in, some arent fit enough, or have other ways of getting out....

that, and a quick clarification, i am going into the military, but not Army, im going into the Air Force

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Well actually if I remeber correctly not everyone had that same opinion. Rosevelt actually did want to go to war though the opinion was negative during that time. Nope. It almost happened during the 90's because they needed doctors and nurses. It may happen again because they need translators if I remeber correctly.Ummm..... I think you do if you get sent to jail. I forgot which crimes though. Can anyone help??That's not true. Ghandi drove the British out with nonviolent means. King fought for racism without fighting. Im hoping the feminist movement was also nonviolent.(One part of history I never studied)

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I'll help you. If you live in certain states you are not allowed to vote if you have been convicted of a felony. California does not have such a law. I'm in the clear ;).

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Wow, I am glad you have studied your history text book, however much of these...(points?) are not applicable at all.

Hooah, I have been to the sand box, cant say I liked it much. But from that perspective you come to realize that everything you see, every single piece of information you recieve, even that which you concieve in your own brain is slanted and warped in some way. Thus, you realize that you can never, ever count on anything and NOTHING is factual.

I realize that most of this response is irrelevant and not neccesary, but I felt motivated to reply.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Please explain how these points are not applicable, because it's not getting through to me too well. You also say that you can count on nothing,and nothing is factual. So are you saying that everything anyone tells you, any officer or the man who originally sent you overseas to a savage conflict, is absolutely untrue? And if you do not follow untrue advice, then why do you follow it? I'm not saying your points are invalid in this post, just explain them, or they really will only serve as catalysts for arguments between you and the person that posted.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Actually, besides the literal translation of my statement, I meant it as a pure catalyst for what seems to me, the first ever interesting freely involved debate ever on CD forums. I mean, thus far, none of the mafia (who call them selves moderators) have jumped in with their giant powertripping egoes to tell me that they do not tolerate this kind of sexism to which I have so amiably referred.

But the literal translation: I meant that what you see in the media, what you learn in the news, textbooks, and statements other people have said, are all biased in a great way. So you have to be careful how you form your opinions, and realize that unless you have first hand experience, you are just spitting out someone else's version of what happened.

So when I see people on forums such as this, dictating all the information they have seen in CNN, I just laugh sadly because they are so uninformed and they dont even know it.

It IS a conspiracy.

Anyway. Off to work.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

*Off topic*

Ahem.. Less tension and name calling.. Please? :/

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I would 100% agree.

I was just talking to an on duty RA in my dorm about that. He's from Canada and was telling me that their history books are slanted in a way which always makes Canada look good. And when I thought about it, that's the way US text books are.

For instance, I never knew how bad times were during the Civil War until I saw the movie "Gangs of New York." I had never learned in History class that the US Army and Navy were used to quell conscription riots.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I agree definitly with the way that's worded, but I would also have to say that I think the public is generally misinformed if they are "spewing out" information given to them by many government offices. There will never be a state of unbias. An unbiased government only exists in a perfect state, which unfortunately is not possible under today's circumstances.

Yes, it is sad that people may just repeat what they read in history books, but there are many facts out there that are not biased. Take into account how much information is being hidden about this "draft issue." Many friends who I speak with were not even aware of its existence. Hiding information for election popularity is a form of bias, though in a very skewed way.

I believe the same can be said for draft laws that have lasted since World War II. There is bias there, and that is information from a national source, so therefore, yes there is going to be bias. But is that what is important? I think the more important question, if we plan to discuss the bias of resources, is how to avoid that bias, rather than to complain about it. Is it more useful, persay, in a state of conflict for the government to disallow capable fighters from defending their families, or is it better to avoid drafting them women into the front lines in hopes that they will remain convinced of their "physical inferiority?" just a couple questions to throw out, my apologies if they are too offtopic.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

We spent history class today looking a powerpoint made by Ithaca College students. It compared Newsweek covers during the Vietnam War to covers prior to the Gulf War and Afghanistan war. I saw what I expected in terms of how the media portrayed the various wars. The media holds more power than the President. History is unchangeable but the way its presented always is. I'm sure I'll get a different view of US history in Texas than in New York (perhaps that's how I'll know I'm in Texas, har har).

Notably, the New York Times ran an article just a few days ago criticizing THEMSELVES of not criticizing pre-Iraq war policies and government actions enough. They believed they failed at keeping the public informed before the war was declared. They believed in the media's power so much that they were willing to publicly admit it when they thought they did less than they could. Props.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I watched the news. There was enough information on their to know the issue was present. In fact the last I heard was that there was not going to be a full fledged draft. Though there may be a form of it. From what I heard only computer people (I think) and translators may be drafted. I heard that too. In fact the commentary I heard was that the media was swinging from little coverage of the pre-war to the other extreme.Hey I knew that to be a fact.:) I remeber the Lend-Lease Act that was passed. Roosevelt did want to help anyway he could be he was facing a hard time.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I think what you meant to say is that you remember what your history book, your teacher, the news, or some documentary, etc. said about the Lend-Lease Act. Since you were not around during World War II, you don't actually remember the actual act since it was far outdated by your time and my time. This is wholely relevant to what is being discussed because as you have shown, most people (myself included) are no longer able to distinguish between what they remember and what they actually are getting from a second-hand source. So as stated above by soezgg (and stated often by the best history teachers), "I meant that what you see in the media, what you learn in the news, textbooks, and statements other people have said, are all biased in a great way. So you have to be careful how you form your opinions, and realize that unless you have first hand experience, you are just spitting out someone else's version of what happened."

Re: Women and the Draft
 

First, props to Yan.

Next:

I am quite sure that women are not physically inferior, I mean ballet is completely dominated by strong legged women who can stand on their tip toes and do ludicrous splits. Figure skating is another physically demanding sport in which women are much better at, and quite frankly, I am ashamed to see any men participating (sorry, but its true).

But when it comes to the battle field, when it comes to carrying ruck-sacks and rifles through desert, mountains and jungles, when it comes to hand-to-hand combat and consistent injury, MEN will remain the number one draft pick (nice pun $$). And, I think this is the general opinion of the US Draft Legislature. Not much we can do about it till millions of years of evolution makes women equal under the same conditions (granted that the human race survive that long).

However, how about women of other nations? They surely arent as pampered as American women. I might draft some of those before I would even consider American women.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Quite the interesting point, soezgg. I agree with you on this one, that many many American women may not be of a lifestyle that prioritizes wilderness survival. I may put into example the Israeli army, that requires every single individual to put 2 years of service into the army. The women I know from Israel generally follow a kosher diet, which is very very healthy (eliminating quite a few unnecessary fats). Among other things, having come from the not so rich sector of Moscow, I remember a lot of my neighbors and friends' sisters being much healthier than I see many people in life today.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Some interesting discussion that has gone on these past few pages (yes, I read all before choosing to reply):

First off, I will preface by saying I don't believe there ought to be a draft for either men OR women, but will state that should there continue to be one, yes, women should be included.

Somewhere way back (maybe page 2, they've kind of rolled together) in this thread, I believe our "Devil's Advocate" referred to a constant need for our nation to defend its citizenry with a strong standing military force, with mention of 9/11 and Iraq. There is no connection between those two events, and although this is off-topic, I must state that.

Violence as a reaction to violence is sending us in a infinite loop. It isn't helping us here, it isn't helping the people in Iraq and in Afghanistan (who at least had some infrastructure prior to our bombs, unlike they have now for the most part), and all we're doing at the moment is alienating those we should be begging forgiveness from and/or asking for help.

Moving on, I don't believe that the Selective Service registration is really symbolic of anything these days. Yes, it allows you to receive federal financial aid, and allows you to register to vote (yes, you have to register for the selective service prior to or at the same time as you register to vote). However, it's just a piece of paper. Another little piece of paper to carry around. Mostly a symbol of being a male turning 18 (ooh boy), and entirely useless in the last 20 or so years except to identify your continued existance to the military. (Yes, I have registered. Woo Hoo.)

This is somewhat unfinished and probably significantly offtopic, but I just felt the need to say it. Sorry :)

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Alright, first off I don't appreciate being called the devil's advocate, if you want to call me out, just do it honarably and use my name.

I have a drivers license. Does that mean I need it? No, I've never been pulled over by a police officer and been required to show it. That doesn't nesecarilly mean that I will never need and and be forced to show and abide by it.

I don't see how you can sign a piece of paper and think you don't have to follow the obligations set forth in it. Do you people have no personal pride?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Yeah props, I agree with this.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh...right.

Anyway, aside from the obvious oversight on behalf of debate-ready-rebel-political high school students everywhere, people dont realize that proactivity is the essential key to preventing events like pearl harbor, embassy bombings, world trade center bombing, uss cole bombing, 9/11 attack on world trade center and Pentagon, and countless other significant events.

We could sit around on our hands with thumbs you know where, or we could scour the earth for our enemies (which in turn creates more, but that is something we have to just deal with). Peace, of course, is completely idealistic, but I assure you, as long as man survives, there will be war. I dont feel the need to quote every single famous ancient philosopher who agrees with me.

As a result of war, we need an Army. The purpose of the US Army, according to Department of the Army, is: to deter war, and if deterrance fails, to win in combat.

Having clearly established the need for an Army, we now need people to be in it. Most government established armed forces are volunteer, however some are mandatory, and some you have to join just to get a job or daily food (N Korea cough cough). In our Armed Forces, we have millions of volunteer patriots, who fight purely to fulfil a personal need to defend their nation as a symbol of everything they value or love. And some are just here for the college money, training, pay, or out of complete boredom blah blah blah.

Anyway, when not enough people join, and we need millions more to join, the Government says 'hey your living in my $@#$@#$@#$@# country, under my protection, we beat the $@#$@#$@#$@# brits to make you live free, now GO FIGHT!!' (sounds kind of like my dad when I lived under 'his house his rules' right?)

Anyway, that is why we have a draft. And if you dont like it, say 'screw this I'm moving to canada', like i have heard many young idealistic political activist cowards say.

Get a clue.

Good game.

Next?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Many countries I have heard of that require service, Israel being a prime example, it is a matter of personal pride to work in the army. Since everyone does it, there is no discrimination against sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. However, in a country that can't call for volunteers without being prejudced against 50% or more of them, I don't think it is an effective stance to say everyone should be proud to go into the army to fight for things they don't believe in. It is a generalization, an idealistic thought that a large majority of the United States population would have quite that much personal pride. If we as a country more heatedly valued our presence for the purpose of "winning battles"/"deterring war", I would agree with you and say that our armed forces are based on everyone's well being. But what about people who don't agree with slaughter, torture and prejudice? What do you say to them when you tell them about the pride to be in the army?

I do however agree with you that hightailing out of the country is a dangerous and not particularly courageous move at this point in time. I would not go so far as to call them cowards. You fight to live and for your family to live, be it in the name of your country or your government or your town or your state. Some people don't share these values, they have their own, which is why the draft will never gain full support, for men women or any combination thereof.

If you have been reading on the actual "draft" thread, you may have seen the discussions as to why the draft will or will not occur, and you can probably notice it leans heavily towards not occurring. Once again I would state that I don't feel this country is quite as glorified as you may think it is, but we are of differing opinions, and I make no move to stop you from acting out for your beliefs. So please, respect others' opinions in the light of this conflict, whether they wish to move to Canada or stand by you in combat.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Yeah I was one of the ones who several times said that draft would not occur.

Yeah I do respect people who flee fighting because I have high tailed it in quite a few fights myself.

Yeah I do respect other peoples opinions, I made no vicious attacks on anyone, but chose to use my freedom of speech and make an opinion that ANYONE WHO RUNS TO CANADA TO DRAFT DODGE IS A $@#$@#$@#$@# COWARD. (Caps means I am yelling at my monitor, for emphasis)

Yeah. Thats my opinion. Respect it.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I have nothing against your opinion at all, but I am tired of the fact that this thread has turned personal, and yes that is partially my fault.

It has also turned vastly vastly off topic.

So what say we quit the personal attacks you and I and get back on topic and try to relate this whole "desertion" thing back to the actual topic of Women in the draft? How do you feel the general public would react, men and women wise, if women were drafted?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

I don't think it would go very well because we have ideals we expect men and women to be like.

Men are supposed to be tall, strong and brave. With muscles upon muscles, hitting the gym daily. Think Abercrombie models.

Women are supposed to be tall, dainty, and thin. And even though their feminine bodies are programmed to carry more fat that men, the general trend in pop cuture is that you should see fat nowhere and should even be able to make out most of a woman's skeletal system. Given the right circumstances, artificial fat (silicon) can be added in places where we think it should be.

The problem is that most women and men don't fulfill those ideals. Most men are weaker either by having a smaller body or by just being overweight than they're supposed to be and most women much more robust.

Essentially, the only way the Army can make the draft seem even remotely equal and also allow women is for everyone who's serving to complete a fitness test. If you can't carry a 160 pound person X number of feet, than you shouldn't be placed on the front lines. From my perspective , I would say 50% of men fall under that category along with about 20% of women.

I also don't follow the "bullet sponge" reasoning. The current rumors about the draft say that computer people and linguists will be sought after. This of course plays particularly close to home for me, next year I will get a degree in computer engineering. I'm sure they'd love to throw someone fresh out of college with no familly (wife, children) or career into the draft. If there was a draft, the army could better utilize myself and alot of other Americans by using us as specialists and not front line combat positions.

Which of course means that there should be a much lower fitness standards for non-combatant military personell. This would seem very sexist but in all honesty, I'm sure there's many men and women sitting in hospital beds in Iraq and Germany just wanting someone to talk to. A perfect non-combatant job would be for compassionate men, or more traditionally women to have some basic medical training and just spend their day visiting with the soldiers while they are in bed. They are in the worst state of their lives, suffering from a potentially life threatening injury. Talk about life, play a game, anything. These guys are away from their loved ones and I'm sure something they don't always get is a compassionate person to share time with.

There's so many non-combat positions that would be great for men and women of all fitness levels to pick up I could go on forever. Just because we're drafting combatants doesn't mean we shouldn't also draft people who could make the military a better place.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Excuse me, I believe you referred to yourself as such a few pages of posts ago. Hence the reason I used that term.

I never claimed anything of the sort. Nor did I make any claim that I would not live up to it should I be called up to do so. However, in this day and age, the primary purpose of that card is to make yourself as a male citizen of the United States eligible to vote and receive financial aid. Period.

I have plenty, thanks. As said above, I have not made any claim that I would not follow up on my obligations, as slim as the odds are of the draft actually being reinstated (especially since the last report the Army gave to the press was that there were enough volunteering right now to not require one in the foreseeable future).

You counter your own earlier arguments here. We haven't had that position, as you've said before, where we have needed a draft, in over 20 years. I also consider myself somewhat of a "young idealistic political activist," however I don't consider "moving to Canada" to be the solution. Activism requires participation in that which one wishes to change. Yes, I'm probably too liberal for my own good. So be it. It's just as American as our far-religious right current government.

I don't believe that the Draft has a common real purpose these days, although I understand its importance in previous generations. As I also said earlier, you will note that should there continue to be a draft, I do support the inclusion of women in it, as it should not be exclusionary.

Our political system allows for dissent. I don't believe in our current war, which our government brought us into through deceit. Period. I also lack any trust in a government leading us into conflicts in general who dodged it themselves when they were eligible earlier... what happened to the long ago days when the leadership led their country themselves. Oh wait, our government is so far removed from the common troops, that they don't particularly care. Our president has daughters, not sons, so he has nothing to worry about.

That got a bit off-topic very quickly, and I apologize in advance. But wrapping oneself in the flag-waving patriotic spirit and claiming we need to be the global police force and remove all that oppose us is not the entirity of this nation's opinion. Please remember that dissent is patriotic too.

Re: Women and the Draft
 

Apparently, I will have to excuse you. You had enough time to correct my spelling mistakes but not enough to research before you posted. a breezy era first used that term in post #41. You later used it in post #68.

If I follow your logic, that the primary purpose for registering for the draft is to be eligible to vote and receive financial aid. Then can I come to the conclusion that the primary reason I got my drivers license is so that when I turn 21 I can go to a bar?

Re: Women and the Draft
 

:-)
 

Well Well, Guess who???
Hello Everyone!

This is Kelly former Team 180 Captain. Anyways, I thought I let some of you know that I am in the Military and I serve our country with great honor. If any of you knew Nicole, She is serving our country as well. We are both females, and we both joined the Service after we have done high school and college. I am in my 2nd year of college. I will be using the University Online program to get my Masters and hopefully get my Ph.D in Math. Anyways, I thought I put that in there because there are a lot of females in the service that are giving their lives to protect this country. And for some males to say that while "women" are sitting at home and "males" going out there to fight, it's not true. I have friends that are getting deployed as I type. They are getting ready to see what life is really like over there. And for some of you "males" out there speaking that we women want voting rights and such, I serve my country so we "women" can have our voice in the system..


That's all that I would like to say.. Sorry... it's just been a venting week for me.. :-)


Buh Bye

PV2 Dahle, Kelly M.
Former Team 180 SPAM

Re: Women and the Draft
 

The picky personal attacks have to stop, or else this thread will be closed. Let's try to focus more on the topic, and less on who said what when and how. Thanks.