Should the Selective Service include females?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
A very touchy subject. Yes. I agree.

Should Selective Service require females to sign up for the draft, as well?

Its an endlessly debated subject that really seems to have no way of coming to a solid and final answer.

My personal feelings:

My first reaction is "YES" women should have to register. I believe that its only fair.

But when i bring myself back into reality - i think of this:
My wife is every bit of 100 lbs soaking wet. She's very tiny - very gentle - and i would give my life to save her from any harm.

Would i want my wife being dragged off to fight a war in which she can barely hold up the rifle?

The answer is most definitely - and absolutely no. To further that - i wouldn't say "YES" to all women except MY wife. That would be unfair to other husbands out there as well.

But, fortunately for us all - i am not the person making decisions in this country, so, we should turn to the candidates for the Presidential Election this year, and see what they have to say about it:


Some of the candidates weigh in: "Should women register for selective service when they turn 18?"




My closing statement is that during WW2 when our government enacted the Draft, this country saw how women could step up and serve their country, and they didn't have to pick up a gun to do it.

That moment of responsible acceptance of one's patriotic duty forever changed our country for the greater good.

I won't support it because i wouldn't want my wife out there in the field.

How about you?






[edit on 8/25/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I would agree for single women who are don't have kids and are not currently in school. I feel for you on the wife thing, but, you didn't mention the single women out there?

But, a draft right now, man, people are so out of touch these days. People wouldn't have their Ipods to download music, no Starbucks, no being lazy. It would be a disaster honestly.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I dont know

i dont mean to suggest that i dont think women CAN do the job

its just i think of it like this:

If women must be required to sign up for the draft - then that means all women

that means my wife

i'd rather have none and her safe at home

than have all and her in harms way

i know its kind of a strange way of looking at it - but its just my own personal take on the issue

there isnt a single candidate which agree's with me



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



there isnt a single candidate which agree's with me


Care to elaborate? I take it as you mean, both candidates want to include women in the selective service? Maybe I am getting it wrong.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Well - they want to include them in the selective service - but they oppose a draft

now - i could be wrong (and will be willing to admit i am if proven so)

but isnt the purpose of a selective service in case we need a draft?

I really don't get the stand-offish approach they take to the question

I dont want women FORCED to register for selective service because i believe there are enough men in this country - not already enrolled - that could serve the call if a draft is ever imposed

i dont' want my wife out there in the battle field should that unfortuante day ever arise

if my wife CHOOSES to go - fine - different story all together, i still would beg her not to

but

It all comes down to choice

i dont want to go to war either - but ill take her place any day of the week.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Thanks that clears it up. Maybe something different, maybe women should be required if need be, as opposed to going to war, stay stateside and help with war efforts, like building supplies, transportation, etc. Fill in the gaps where the men left.

I know in history, women have done this, but more on a volunteer basis. Again, the U.S. was so different back then. A lot of people today wouldn't care about helping out.

But, if they wanted to do something with the women, maybe just keeping them here and helping at least.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I also would like to see the candidates consider that modern technology virtually eliminates the "need" for a draft to ever occur again

when a Predator drone plane can fly over any part of the world and drop bombs and missiles - why should 18 year old boys be sent into battle against their will?

I dunno, a lot of people would disagree with me - but all together im against a draft 100%

more so im against including women into the draft

not to be condescending to women at all - but women are built much differently from men, i wouldn't want a woman to have to live up to the same expectations on the battle field.


as far as civil work at home - factories and what not - i guess it all depends on how you look at it


people already fill those jobs men and women alike

its a lot different since women stepped up in WW2 and showed the world how strong they can be.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



I also would like to see the candidates consider that modern technology virtually eliminates the "need" for a draft to ever occur again


Great Point!

I don't even think that they consider this. I don't think we will have an all out land war anyway in the future, especially with the advancement of technology.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
In the end though

i guess any politician who takes the steps to implement a draft can pretty much kiss re-election good bye

being as this is ATS, i feel comfortable throwing this scenario out there

the only instance i'd be comfortable with a draft is invasion of planet earth from hostile non-earthlings


in that case, i believe it should be every man woman and child able to hold a gun

like we saw in LOTR: The twin towers

they were giving little boys axes

no fun - i agree

but in the face of total annihilation - its your only choice.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I think that if men have to register for something, women should too, but as others suggested, the physical nature of women means that many of us are not suited for combat. That doesn't mean that we couldn't, for example, serve in the Navy, or in all sorts of infrastructure related roles, and in many cases would actually be better at such things than a male counterpart - women are often better at multitasking, and logistic related tasks, which can be very important in any large military operation.

I don't, therefore, see problems with requiring women to sign up for selective service, as long as their positions were correctly implemented to make use of their strengths, rather than focus on our weaknesses.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I absolutely think women should register for the draft if it ever comes up again. Women can and DO server this country with honor and are just as vital to the cause as the men are.

Of course it's hard to think of our loved ones being torn away from us, but every single person has those feelings and thoughts. But letting a son or husband or father or brother go is just as hard.

I happen to believe that women should be permitted to serve any position for which they are able, just like men. Even combat.

I also agree with some of the candidates that we should get young people involved in serving the country in other ways. For example, community service in exchange for college tuition, etc. Made available to young men and women, of course.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


It would have to be all women, and not just a certain type (single, etc). Men have to register regardless of the marital status. With Sen. McCain thinking of the draft, (he stated support and then changed his mind) this should be a very real discussion.
I think you would be surprised at what your 100 lb wife could do. Being in the military, I have seen the woman do their fair share of the work. I was in the AF, and I did know a few female SPs. They were not ones to mess around with on duty.

I know this will sound dated, but I don't think we should require women to register. If they want to serve during a crisis, that is fine, but the number of men would be enough for the time being.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
i'm not saying my wife, or any other woman for that matter, COULDNT serve in the military

i'm saying that i dont want MY wife being forced to

and i evolve that line of thinking by applying it to all women

i dont want my wife, but i dont want other wives either.

Im not going to be one of those people who say

"I dont care what happens to your wife, as long as my wife doesnt have to go"



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Well, I am totally opposed to a draft. The only time a draft is necessary, in my opinion, is when the wars being fought are not fully supported by the citizenry, i.e. are wars of aggression, wars for profit, etc.

An all volunteer force is sufficient for non-interventionist requirements - a force truly dedicated to protection of the US (speaking of US forces...
). If someone were to invade the US, there would be plenty of volunteers.

That said, IF a draft were to be activated, I would be in favor of every single person - EVERYBODY - being eligible. No deferrments, no "Daddy's money got you out", none of that.

Modern warfare is not as physical strength-based as it used to be, clearly. Women can pilot aircraft or be a crew member of a tank as well as men. Clearly there are some jobs, such as hoisting 130mm artillary projectiles around, where raw strength does matter, but there are plenty of jobs where it is not as vital.

So taking the big picture into consideration, I oppose policies that result in such military adventurism where an all volunteer force is not adequate. This is the direction I see the US taking at present, and I am in complete opposition to this.

But, if we take that out of the question for the moment, and talk about who is eligible for a draft, I say everybody. And in that case, those who are unfit for combat duties can fill in some of the many many support roles also necessary.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If it were up to me and there was no other option than a draft, I would make it mandatory for men and volunteer for women. And this is coming from someone whose mother is currently in the Forces.

I look at it from an economical standpoint, and I do apologize if this sounds discriminatory as it is not my intention, but I believe that a war has to be fought on two fronts. You have the front line and the structure of support.

The women of the Allies really stepped up in World War II in the form of having the economy continue. While men were on the front lines or involved in some sort of military action, the women were just as important in the form of manufacturing and taking over "men" jobs at home. They were vital to our victory in World War II, and I feel that a draft placed on both men and women would grind the economy to a standstill, as there would be nobody to handle these jobs during wartime. I know that times have changed since WW2, but that would still be a reality in this day in age.

I also look at it from a reproductive standpoint. The end of WW2 brought the "baby boomers" generation. The Allies' death toll after WW2 was 14.2 million (not including civilians). The majority of those soldiers were male. If the draft had been implemented for women as well back in World War II, and that 14.2 million death toll was mixed in with a substantially larger female population, would we of still had such a large "baby boomer" population?

For the record, however, I am against any sort of draft barring some unforeseen circumstance, and we're certainly not there yet...thank goodness!



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I flagged this before I even read the post. The title alone got my mind reeling. This is definitely something that a lot of people don't really talk about. Great topic!!

I don't believe in the draft in any way, shape, or form. If you have to draft people then maybe not enough people believe the war is justified and therefore forcing them to fight is severely for the benefit of the ideologies of the government. Like instating a draft in a pre-emptive war like this one or if there was one started with Iraq. People wouldn't be fighting for their country if they were drafted. They would only be fighting to for their own self defense and the government would ultimately be their murderer because they deliberately put them in that position.

With all that said--for the sake of the discussion I will put my two cents in.

I mull this over in my head a lot! Being female, I can't really help but do that.

I don't think you could classify me as a feminist, but I'm not one of those "women need to stay at home with their kids" females either. I always seem to be in between. I always call myself a "tweener" about everything.

With that said, I do believe women to be sensitive creatures and more prone to being traumatized when it comes to violence. I just think that we have so many men already coming home with PTSD from what they saw and did over there that to put women in the mix would just make things that much worse.

I also think hesitation to "kill the enemy" would be more prevalent among women putting others at greater risk. I think men would be more apt to want to protect the women. It's just inherent. Protect the women and children. Speaking of children, can you imagine a woman fighting in a village or city who sees a little baby child on the street?

I would put down my gun amidst all the fighting and go save that little child. Many women would do the same even if that means their death.

Also, imagine what would happen to a captured woman. You think the torturing of male POW's is bad? Just try to picture what would happen to a woman. I am cringing right now. There's also enough worry from are own service men committing brutality against women in the service. There are plenty of cases of this.

I think what would be fair is if women were required to register for the draft they should be able to, if they were conscientious objectors, to chose to do something here at home to support the war effort or even over seas such as tending to the wounded and what not. Actually I think women AND men should have that option.

Edit to add: I base all this on the notion ( that i have heard from others) that those that are drafted are automatically sent to the front lines, i.e. combat positions. Definitely correct me if I'm wrong.




[edit on 28-8-2008 by nunya13]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
There are a few issues in this question for me, and while I love ya Andrew, I got to disagree with you on this one.

1) Almost everyone, aside from the "freedom lovers" who really don't care for freedom, is opposed to the draft. If this is so why even BOTHER having to register at all?

This is the fundamental question we continue to pass over. If we disagree with it so fundamentally, then why have it?

I know I know, many will say just in case. Just in case of what? Rubbish, if we do not have enough volunteers to operate a war, then it is not supported and is therefore unworthy.

2) Should women be in the military at all? Should they be in active combat? Should they register?

Yes yes and yes. You want equality, cool with me, I encourage it, but you got to swallow that bitter pill of crap if you want the benefits as well. This is a large part of why the push for equality failed in many respects, because aside from taxation we have failed to really consider women equal in any respect.

I'm tired of the soft-core sexist trash that resides in this country on the male side and the entitled belief sans the full brunt of responsibility on the female side. This is not ubiquitous, but it certainly permeates our culture and drives our policy.

3) Should the standards be slackened to accommodate women?

No, although the military has already done this and I find it ridiculous. Equality is equality. One standard, end of story.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
With that said, I do believe women to be sensitive creatures and more prone to being traumatized when it comes to violence. I just think that we have so many men already coming home with PTSD from what they saw and did over there that to put women in the mix would just make things that much worse.


Wow, selling out your own sex in your first post. No offense (truly) but it's a good thing my wife didn't read this or she might have less congenial things to say.

This is a cop out pure and simple. Living in America it's hard to find really strong women (in the sense you are denying at least) outside of some farms/rural areas and the inner city.

Women are more mentally stable than men generally, women have a higher pain threshold than men do, and women have (as I call it) "emotional endurance".

Having lived outside of America, I have seen some rough parts of the world and the women there would beat many American men senseless before returning to plow the fields.

Do not discount a woman's strength and remember that environment and training are fundamental.


"I also think hesitation to "kill the enemy" would be more prevalent among women putting others at greater risk. I think men would be more apt to want to protect the women. It's just inherent. Protect the women and children. Speaking of children, can you imagine a woman fighting in a village or city who sees a little baby child on the street?"


Rubbish, it's a cultural thing, nothing more. Continuing the mentality that women are helpless flowers certainly doesn't do anything positive for your sex, only debases it and in my mind you insult yourself and other women.

Can you imagine a man (many times a father in our military) seeing a little baby on the street? What kind of cold-hearted person one would have to be not to try to help/protect a small child in a very hazardous environment.


Also, imagine what would happen to a captured woman. You think the torturing of male POW's is bad? Just try to picture what would happen to a woman. I am cringing right now. There's also enough worry from are own service men committing brutality against women in the service. There are plenty of cases of this.


Ah, we get to the crux of the matter as I've always seen it. The unwillingness to have women as POWs. Sure, they will probably be raped and tortured. This is an unfortunate situation but it is the way things are. This does not dissuade me from recommending equality in service.

As for service men abusing women, I'll tell you from personal experience, all a woman has to do is point her little finger and things happen. Cases of misconduct and sexual aggressiveness are taken very seriously in the military these days.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My mother is in the Canadian forces and was one of the best shots during her field training in Basic, and was better than most of her male counterparts.

Women are just as capable of doing the job as men are. As far as who is better or who is worse, that can be determined based on the INDIVIDUAL and not their gender. Making assumptions based on gender, whichever side you are debating on, would be sexist in my opinion.

I'm still not for drafting women into the military, but that is based on the reasons I provided above, and not based on putting entire genders into a "cookie cutter" mold of what we assume the gender is capable of in the mental and physical sense. I hope that made sense...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
I think that if men have to register for something, women should too, but as others suggested, the physical nature of women means that many of us are not suited for combat. That doesn't mean that we couldn't, for example, serve in the Navy, or in all sorts of infrastructure related roles, and in many cases would actually be better at such things than a male counterpart - women are often better at multitasking, and logistic related tasks, which can be very important in any large military operation.

I don't, therefore, see problems with requiring women to sign up for selective service, as long as their positions were correctly implemented to make use of their strengths, rather than focus on our weaknesses.


Honestly, there are plenty of men out there, that legally have to sign up for selective service that are not suited for combat either. What I am about to say may sound harsh, and may be taken the wrong way, but I hope it doesn't.

Women want equal rights, and I am glad that at least in this country(United states) we give it to them. If you want eual treatment, then if I as a male am legally required to sign up for selective service when I turn 18, then so should women. you want to be treated equally, then sign up for everything a man has to.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join