Should the Selective Service include females?, page


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 25-8-2008 @ 11:41 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin
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]


reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 12:25 AM by jhill76
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.


reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 12:31 AM by jhill76
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.


reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 12:41 AM by jhill76
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.


reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 12:47 AM by jhill76
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.


reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 11:43 AM by kidflash2008
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.



reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 12:09 PM by matth
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!


reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 08:21 PM by nunya13
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]


reply posted on 2-9-2008 @ 09:24 AM by KrazyJethro
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.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^