Women in the Draft
Posted December 27th, 2002 @ 12:28pm by Erik J. Barzeski
This article, which talks about women in the draft (or more correctly, women not in the draft, makes several good points. I find it fairly paradoxical that for all of the "women's lib" stuff going on, women have never said "we also want to be forced to go to war!" But whenever I mention this to a woman, she typically pulls out the "hey, buddy, we already give birth, and until you're forced to do that, you can go to war for us."
The absurdity there is simply that one is a fact of nature - the female in most species gives birth (hermaphroditic or asexual organisms excluded) - and one is a matter of politics. The latter we can change...
If I were drafted, odds are I'd be at a computer or in some way in charge of engineering of some sort. I have odd eyesight and a funky shoulder, so I don't think I'd be of much assistance as a ground soldier of any kind. I'd be best utilized manning a radar screen or writing software or who knows what - any sort of technical (not mechanical) sort of task. Women, most likely, would be utilized to do the same - not lugging around 70 lbs of gear in a desert, but rather, relaying correspondence or serving in an office or something. And that's not to bash women - just a simple matter of fact that women tend to be less muscular and thus less capable field soldiers.
And all that leads up to one thing: if women aren't in the draft because we can't picture our country's sisters and daughters (I leave out mothers, because the draft only affects men 18-25 really, and anyone who can read probably has a mother older than that) on the field of battle, then I'm saying that we probably simply don't need to, because very few would end up there. However, given the choice between putting some buff kick-ass woman on the field of battle in place of meekly little me, then I'd like to think that the sentimental attachment we have to "women in the kitchen, soft, cuddly" etc. could be put aside in favor of serving our country.
It's simply a matter of putting our best foot forward, and frankly, we're ignoring the services of a lot of women who could be greatly utilized to perform various tasks in the pinch of war. What did women do during the last "big" war? They organized war drives and rallies and all sorts of things. They sold war bonds or cut back on their consumption of whatever metals or materials we needed. But they weren't drafted to do so. All I'm proposing as "fair" would be to make it official in some capacity, that women could be drafted, and that their services could be required, as they are required of men.
I plainly admit that if I were a woman, I'd disagree wholeheartedly. After all, drafting women sounds ominous. Shipping women off to war sounds ominous (for that matter, shipping anyone off to war sounds horrible). But as a guy, as a male, the whole "equality" thing just seems a bit tainted. You want equality, women? Fine... step up to the plate and accept the things that come with equality. Accept the fact that if we went to some big war, your services might be required by the country that gave you equality in voting, what clothes you can wear, land ownership, and countless other things you simply couldn't get - as a woman - in several other countries.
Anyway, I've run out of steam, but I want to leave this thought as the last on this topic for now: even if women are added to the draft, or if they're not, I still remain hopeful that the draft will never again be needed.
(Update: January 17, 2003 - a seemingly interesting article on this topic at Salon.com. I can't read it all because I'm not a subscriber.)
Posted 03 Jan 2003 at 3:21pm #
Along this topic, it looks like (D) Rep. Charles Rangel of New York will be proposing to reinstate the draft (and everyone would be required to register).
At the moment though, there doesn't appear to be any support behind it.
Posted 24 Jan 2003 at 2:41pm #
Ok, let me explain something to you. Originally when women were seeking "equality" all they wanted was the same amount of money that Joe was reveiving for the same exact job, as apposed to half of the price for the same amount of labor. These "liberal feminists" are the ones that took that and blew it out of proportion, and caused the problems that we now face. Let them go to war. I on the other hand would be quite content staying home. I have always said that. So, here is a question. What about the non feminist women, who never asked for this? Must they be forced into something that they are not prepared for, or asked for?
Posted 09 Feb 2003 at 9:20pm #
I am a woman who happens to agree with your ideas. How can one pick and choose equality? Most women are very adamant about equality, myself included, however when it comes to subjects like the draft there is suddenly no comment. I say that equal rights include equal responsibilities. You can't just be "equal" when it's convenient.
Posted 09 Mar 2003 at 12:37am #
women have kids at 16 in this country give me a break. Have you ever read Brain Sex? Most women have kids at 24 1/2. And what about religious women. Who said women want the ERA? It got defeated because people pointed out to women what it really meant. Most women sacrifice tons of personal fulfillment to manage the home, like religion directs them to do. If they work, they are nearly ALWAYS the ones who still do all the cleaning, change the diapers, nurse the babies before going back to work or take years off work to change diapers and love their kids, and they are nearly ALWAYs the ones to sacrifice any career they might have for their kids before their husband makes sacrifices. They usually would prefer not to work at manual labor/boring jobs. Lots of women would like not to work, but go to work to pay the mortage, pay for insurance, pay for kids college, or pay for a higher standard of living. Most women who want to work are intellectuals like me, and even most of them wish fervently to stay at home when their kids are adorable toddlers, but some know they will be thought to have lost their touch in their jobs, or can't do part time or whatever. Religous people would cringe at sending women to work in the military in any way other than it was done in 1940. So, stong women get to be infantrymen and get raped when captured like the woman in the Gulf War and on ships that are war targets? Religious people don't go for that. Why would any woman be interested in being in war. Any religious woman would prefer to be a nurse out of sight and mind of the enemy armies (which all have combat units of MEN). SO WOMEN EITHER GET NO RIGHTS OR THEY HAVE TO BE MEN. IF WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO WORK WHEN WE'RE SINGLE OR WHEN ARE KIDS ARE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND WE'RE BORED WITH THE HOUSEWORK OR WHEN THE KIDS ARE ALL GROWN UP OR IF WE CAN'T HAVE KIDS TOO BAD, WE HAVE TO BE DRAFTED TOO? OH, WE HAVE TO BE LIKE THE TALIBAN OR TREAT MEN AND WOMEN EXACTLY THE SAME WITH NO MIDDLE GROUND. RELIGIOUS WOMEN DON'T GO FOR THAT. WOMEN DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF ROLE. THEY HAVE A PEACEFUL ROLE IN THE BIBLE AND MANAGE THE HOME AND GET PROTECTED AND PROVIDED FOR BY MEN AND MOST WOMEN WOULD BE HAPPY IF MEN WERE JUST DECENT. ISLAMIC WOMEN CAN OWN LAND IDIOT.
Posted 09 Mar 2003 at 8:55am #
Uhh, Jenny, if you'd like to try again, and post something that's halfway intelligible, feel free to do so and I'll remove your comment above (and this one) and replace it with the one that you'll submit in its place. One that people can read and understand, perhaps.
Posted 18 Mar 2003 at 1:32pm #
Women volunter freely to go to war so there is the women comming up to bat. women can do the same thing men can and its been proven In may 1995 The us army research institute of environemtnal medicine at natick massachusetts. so women offer to go to war but are never taken like men are so thus the congress is sexiest. many times the thought of bring women in the draft have came into many presidents minds like rosevelt and carter. but congress again and the house of representatives has stoped them. so dont blame the women for not being drafted blame the government
Posted 27 Mar 2003 at 11:33am #
I happen to agree with you. If a woman is capable of being in the army, they should be. I happen to know a few females that would make alot better soldiers than me. They should accept the resposiblities that go with what they've fought so hard for, to achieve "equality".
Posted 01 Apr 2003 at 10:07am #
I would just like to direct a comment at "jenny" who posted on march 9. the "MIDDLE GROUND" that you speak of toward the end of statement is a complete load of bull. That is simply your way of saying that you want equality when it is convenient for you. As for your argument about all of the everyday tasks that women perform, feminists are always complaining about the repetition of the TRADITIONAL roles of women. Maybe you should step up to the plate and try to change those roles by taking responsibility for something as important as the draft.
Posted 09 Apr 2003 at 12:17am #
I compeletly agree with your arguement. I don't want my being a young woman standing between me and anything. If that means that I might have to go to war then I would be proud to stand up and fight for my country and what I believe in. I also believe what others before me have said you can't choose when you want to be equil, it's either you're equil or you're not. I also believe that a woman souldn't just be subjected to non-combat positions where they cant be on the front lines and they can't be in any special forces. If the chick thinks that she can do it then by all means let her try, but why should men have to be subjected to the risks of close combat and not women. Rules of this society have changed and are changing still. Women are recognizing the fact that some can take care of themselves. If a war was brought to our homeland do you think I or me mom or even my grandmothers would let them take over??? Hell no. Standing next to the men, we would take something up againt the invaders whether it be a gun, a kitchen knife, or a castiron pot. Equil rights mean equil responsibility. Thant all I have to say.
Posted 14 Apr 2003 at 10:39pm #
ok, so i consider myself to be a "religious woman" and i think women in the draft is not such a bad idea. the whole "equality when it's convenient" argument is definitely legit. if women want to be equal, then equal it is...and everything that comes with it. now, the military isnt going to put a woman in the front lines of combat, especially if her training officers dont think she can handle it. but there are a number of services that women can contribute and i think that (god forbid we ever have to reinstate the draft) when our nation needs to be urgently defended, women can most definitely step up and offer their abilities just as well as men.
Posted 04 May 2003 at 12:22pm #
I happened onto this site, because I am writing an editorial for one of my classes and the response given by "jenny" was very disturbing. I just want to say to anyone else who reads this that, first of all "jenny" doesn't speak for all us "religious women" as she put it. And, wow, what did she mean by "religious women" anyway. There are tons of different religions, and no, not all of them believe that the woman's place is in the home. If you've ever read the holy bible you'll find some of the biggest women's libs in there(Deborah for example: military leader, high priest, prophet, judge, you can find that in Judges Ch. 4) So, anyway please son't take what "jenny" said as gospel. I'm a Christian and I believe that if women want equal rights they should also except equal responsibility.
Posted 09 May 2003 at 9:53am #
I agree that if there is going to be a draft at all it should be equal, but we shouldn't send women OR men out to fight. I am a pracitioner of non-violence and don't want their to be a draft or war, at all, so its not like I'm going to go out of my way to add people to the list of posible drafties.
Posted 16 May 2003 at 9:21am #
I agree with the Anon post. I didn't ask for equality, and I'm not asking for this. Woman in the draft is a ridiculous idea. I know of few young men, much less woman, who would be willing to be drafted. I turned 18 just before the recent war started, and I heard several of the young men I knew talking about if the draft was reinstated that they would be on the first bus to Canada or going into the office together and openingly admitting they were gay [while most of them weren't] just to keep from having to go to war. And all of us girls' statements were that we were sure glad that we didn't have to sign up for it. Yes, this may sound unAmerican, but in all truth, there are girls who are not built for war just as there are men not built for it, and just like there are men that are built for war, there are also women who are. The draft is unneeded, anyway. With the onset of the war with Iraq, enlistment numbers tripled. Besides, if there are women that want into the military, all the better to them. If you really want to go kill people at get shot at, go right ahead. Just don't drag me along with you.
Posted 20 May 2003 at 5:20pm #
Hi iam a 17, and iam a guy. In my Language class we are debating on if the government should ad women to the draft. Iam all for it because there are those women who fight for "equality" on every thing so they can get treated the same as a male. Yet when it comes to fighting for our country they all back down. And i think it is unfair that only us men have to register for the draft, its not just our country, were not the only ones living here. I also agree with Rachel on February 9, 2003 09:20 PM who posted that (Most women are very adamant about equality, myself included, however when it comes to subjects like the draft there is suddenly no comment. I say that equal rights include equal responsibilities. You can't just be "equal" when it's convenient.) but i also agree about the women who dont wanto go and arnt able to go cause of familys.. Oh yeah and who ever jenny is, just stop wasting your time and tring ot sound like you knwo what your talking aobut because you dont have any idea. Later
Posted 11 Sep 2003 at 7:52pm #
I don't think that it is fair for men to be infantrymen, and not women. I think one problem with this is that the men are scared that the women with kick a little butt if they were to be allowed to serve in this position. It might scare them a little because there not all prissy and frilly like most men think.
Posted 11 Sep 2003 at 7:55pm #
whoever said women are not built for war can kiss my ass, because I might kick yours. Men are not as tough as they think, even though they may act like it. So if you bring up again that they are inferior to men, BRING IT ON!
Posted 15 Oct 2003 at 2:18pm #
First and foremost, I believe that no human being, man or woman, should be forced into anything against their will. But in the case that a draft was required, I say that both men and women should be included. We, as women, have fought for our equality. So, we are just as much a part of this country as men. Thus, we are just as responsible for defending it.
Also, it was mentioned earlier that women may suffer rape if captured. Well, rape is a form of torture and men are tortured when captured as well. Therefore, they are being just as deeply scarred as any woman would be if raped.
To those women that fight for equality only when it is beneficial for themselves...STOP GIVING ALL THE REST OF US A BAD NAME!!!
Thank you.
Posted 03 Dec 2003 at 9:54am #
no woman should have to be on the draft because
the woman have a lot to do at home plus the fact
of haveing kids to take care of so no girls should be put though the war if i was i would go off because some woman have other dreams like to
go to collage not to go and get killed and what if the girl has to take care of her family or she has something wrong with her or her family? then what? but if the woman wants to let her!!!!!!
Posted 03 Dec 2003 at 9:57am #
yes woman should do whats right but know one not even men should be forced to do something they dont want to
Posted 03 Dec 2003 at 10:02am #
well no one should be drafted away form there family because thats wrong i mean think about it would you want to live your family at such a age?
Posted 08 Dec 2003 at 10:06am #
IF YOU PEOPLE ARE SMART YOU WOULDN'T SENT WOMEN TO THE DRAFT THEY NEED TO STAY HOME WITH THE KIDS AND IF YOU THINK THE NEED TO DO THE MAN JOD WELL YOUR WRONG WE AREADY DO ALOT FOR THIS COUNRY I DONT EVEN NEED TO START NAMING IF WE ARE DRAFTED THEN WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS AND WHAT ABOUT
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 10:57am #
I'm writing a paper for my ENglish class and I ran across this website. Ok first fo all Jenny is GAY! And this was very entertaining to read. I think women shouldn't be included for the plain fact there is a law against women fighting in ground combat and most draftees go into ground combat. If that law is changed my opinion may change but until then no. But if women want to fight go right ahead! Rock On!
Posted 24 Feb 2004 at 2:38pm #
women should definitly be in the draft...i don't want some pussy man fighting for me when i could kick balls under pressure much harder than most guys can...besides we fight for the same pay and the same jobs, i dont want my kids(who i didnt have when i was 16, but many of my friends did) to grow up thinking women only want equality when its beneficial, i want equality all the time, including when it comes to war tactics.
Posted 25 Feb 2004 at 3:14pm #
What kind of a pathetic nation can consider such a thing?Does anyone question the nature of the missions?..Male dominated greed objectives put forth by a patriarchal foreign power that seeks to exploit the riches of every nation using any and all human capital.Let Rumsfeld Wolfowitz cheney and bush send their daughters first.Hell no.
Posted 11 Mar 2004 at 10:54am #
This one goes out to the women that thinks she can "kick balls" harder than any other man out there. i believe women should be in the draft but not on the front line to fight beacase i believe they will be too emotional and because they have there time of the month it can affect thier decisions greatly during combat. Besides the fact that women are 98 percent of the time not as strong as men i believe women will be a distraction to men on the front line.
Posted 20 Apr 2004 at 10:09am #
you suck
Posted 28 Apr 2004 at 11:34am #
Woman should have the right to be drafted. Maybe not on the front line but maybe they could be nurses or cooks or something. Women are alwalys saying they want equal rights well if they really want equal rights that means they should get the bad parts of the rights too. Men and women nowadays both have pretty similar rights and our country would only get stronger if we worked together. Woman might not have the strength to do things like carry a gun on the front lines but they sure could do many other jobs. Thanks for listening to my ideas.
Posted 04 May 2004 at 1:22am #
I am in the military (20 years and counting) My only take on this is that is women do not have to register in the Selective Service, but men do! I a man between 20 and 26 doesn't register, then guess what, no financial aid and other federal benefits. Women don't have to worry about this. Either we are all in it together or we're not. It should be equal for both sides.
Posted 04 May 2004 at 2:07pm #
I am doing a research paper on women and the draft. Let me clear something up the only reason I am not posting my name or any other information is because there are pychos in this world. Your article was okay but something you said really pissed me off. WHAT DID WOMEN DO IN THE LAST WAR? You need to study history and the economy more in depth. Firt of all, since most the men were being drafted the women were in charge of manufacturing clothes, weapons, supplies...Also, women were left to take care of businesses and farms....If it weren't for women taking care of the economy at home then when the men came back their wouldn't be a country left for fighting for. WW2 would have been useless because it wouldn't have kicked started the economy after the great depression. So, before you make claims like that again I suggest you know what you are talking about! Also, towards the end of the war many countries began drafting women and many women did fight on the front lines. Don't you dare say women contributed nothing. Also, if your going to critique women i do reccomend you give birth because it feel worse then any physical torture that could befall you during war!
Posted 04 May 2004 at 2:11pm #
I was the one without a name. I read some more comments and I just wanted to say that I am not against women being in the draft but if they do decide to then men better give us the rights we asked for with equal pay and security be better because women can not only be raped by enemy soldiers but even soldiers they work with and to me that is disturbing.
Posted 04 May 2004 at 2:13pm #
Oh, I also felt that I should elaborate, during the last major war that involved most of the world (WW2) women had only begun to question not being given enough rights. I believe in equality no matter what sex and with everything good comes bad.
Posted 05 May 2004 at 1:21am #
Mrs Nobody: If you think "the last war" was WW2, you have some severe misconception about history. In fact, the USA is at war right now.
Posted 06 May 2004 at 12:53pm #
I am talking about a MAJOR WORLD WAR!!! And as for this war there are many women serving in the militatry and they haven't started to draft yet anyways.
Posted 06 May 2004 at 12:56pm #
I just thought I might add that I am not agianst women in the draft because I feel that I could not enjoy the freedom given to me if i was not part of the fight for it. I am jsut saying that not all women are against the draft and that even though women may not have fought in several past wars they didn't sit around and do nothing they did help.
Posted 06 May 2004 at 1:07pm #
I just had to add that I think if they are going to put women in the draft then they better give women all the rights equal to men and the same pay for the same jobs in the workplace. You might think that today men and women get paid the same for the same jobs but they don't. Research the "glass ceiling" if you want to know more about it or a google search for "women in the workplace".
Posted 10 May 2004 at 7:28pm #
To Eric Smitch,
Fuck you. Women have a right to stand up for their country and fight my their men. I could kick your ass. Even though women are weaker we are more agile then men. So KISS MY ASS YOU MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 10 May 2004 at 7:34pm #
just so you know men could be raped too. also women do not have to be in the war to get raped.
Posted 06 Jul 2004 at 8:34pm #
To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy against intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than a Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that military conscription will again be implemented during the months following the 2004 Presidential Election. The nature of this struggle renders irrelevant the person or party who wins the election.
With very rare exceptions, every male residing in the United States 18 to 26 years of age is required by the Military Selective Service Act to register with the Selective Service System, and thereby subject himself to the possibility of involuntary military service. Yet, with the ongoing War on Islamic Terrorism, the prosecution of which has required the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel, and stretched the National Guard and Reserve to its limit, absolutely no female in the U.S. is required to register. This clear fact of gender discrimination has not been focused upon in public discussions because an active draft has not been in effect since 1973.
The United States Selective Service System offers on its Website a short history of the draft with respect to women. The primary reason given for non-registration of women is a Supreme Court decision, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Simply stated, it says that since all men registered with the Selective Service are considered combat replacements, and since Congress forbids women to go into combat, women should not be registered. Of course, this reasoning is absolutely absurd, since it presupposes that absolutely every male called for involuntary military service will be used exclusively for combat, and conversely that absolutely no male called will be used for the approximately 90% of military jobs which are non-combat related.
Two identical pieces of legislation before the U.S. Congress, H.R.163 and S.89, referred to as Universal National Service Act of 2003, amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of females. Unless exempted, they obligate the performance of a two-year period of national service either in the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that “promotes the national defense,” for all United States residents, male and female, between 18 and 26 years of age. Further perusal of this proposal reveals Section 5(d), which authorizes the President “to apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.” This Section clearly permits the President to perpetuate the current double standard and pander to the female voting majority. Because of a Congressional rule exempting females, only males will be placed involuntarily into direct ground combat. Females, although subject to national service, will be spared the dirt and danger that is inherent in facing our country’s enemies. Section 5(d) guarantees that virtually all females will return whole and well to enjoy equal civil rights and equal veteran benefits, while those of their male peers who do return will have had a vastly different experience discharging their ’male-only’ civil responsibilities.
Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of continuing gender discrimination:
1. Do equal civil rights for females obligate females to equal civil responsibilities? Should the absence of female civil responsibilities vis-à-vis military service commensurately diminish female civil rights? In light of the fact that only males are required by Federal law to serve involuntarily in direct ground combat for up to six years of their lives, and to risk their very existence in that service, to what quantum degree should females’ civil rights be diminished? Why is the pretext of a logically flawed Supreme Court decision, and continuing legislative gender discrimination, allowed to exempt the female majority of the population from any possibility of involuntary direct ground combat? .
2. Should female members of the Legislative and Executive branches of government be permitted to vote for war, i.e. to place only males into involuntary direct ground combat, while they and their daughters enjoy gender exemption from such civil responsibility?
3. Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funding be used for all school-based activities, including athletics, in schools that receive any federal funding. Many schools have had to abandon male team sports that earn revenue in excess of their costs and which aid in the preparation of males for the teamwork and organization of military service, in order to provide gender-equal funding for female sports which perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no imperative for females to utilize the skills and strengths learned on the athletic field and in the classroom for the military defense of their country. Should Title IX continue?
4. Finally, to address those arguments, based on strength and speed, against placing females involuntarily into direct ground combat. Gender-norming has been used to affirmatively place females ahead of males into civilian positions requiring physical strength and speed, such as firefighters, police, smoke jumpers, and cadets in service academies. Why not use these same gender-normed standards, which are significantly less rigorous than those minimums required of males for the same occupations, to affirmatively qualify females for involuntary direct ground combat? Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow to perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be affirmatively placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar strength and speed.
Posted 14 Nov 2004 at 5:19pm #
Actually, the beginning premise to your argument is simply not true (to my dismay). I am teaching a unit on the Draft to high school students, and I needed a coherent argument for keeping women out of the draft written by a significant writer (male or female).
Honestly, after several hours I am at a loss. I had no problem locating articles supporting women in the draft, but very little luck finding oppositional views.
It seems that even our feminists are saying, "we also want to be forced to go to war!" So much for that the "women's lib" stuff.
Posted 29 Nov 2004 at 4:04pm #
Women and men who say that women shouldnt be drafted for the reasons of staying home and taking care of children obveously arnt in tune with the 20th century, the last time i checked both men and women started taking care of their children weather the mother or father wee donig it. So to those who say women shouldnt be drafted based on that fact you need to realize what country you are in and realize women and men both help out in the house hold.
Posted 02 Dec 2004 at 1:52pm #
WOMEN ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE EQUAL BUT TO ALL THE MEN THAT ARE TRYING TO PUT WOMEN IN WARS NOW WHAT IS THIS, 1 DAY THEY SAY WOMEN ARE TO WEAK AND FIGHTING IS A MANS JOB THEN KEEP IT THAT WAY..... IF WOMEN R IN WARS NOW WHAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE KIDS ARE MONISTERS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEM... THANK YOU.
Posted 07 Dec 2004 at 1:26pm #
Most of the children here are missing the key points of my little essay.
1a. This has nothing to do with VOLUNTEERING. In a draft, males are REQUIRED to perform military service against their will. In a draft, males are REQUIRED to perform direct ground combat against their will. Males are REQUIRED to perform six years of government service, should the government call them. Females go to the beauty parlor. This is the very essence of gender discrimination.
1b. Motherhood is VOLUNTARY. The draft is NOT VOLUNTARY. To say that women perform their civil responsibilities by bearing children does not speak to the issue. If a female refuses to be a mother, she does not commit a felony, she does not go to federal prison. If a male refuses to report in a draft, he does go to prison. To repeat, motherhood is VOLUNTARY.
2. Gender norming has been used to 'affirmatively' place large numbers of females into physically active occupations which were formerly closed to them because of their inability to pass the rigorous physical requirements. The physical requirements were lowered for female job applicants only; male applicants still had to pass the rigorous physical requirements, or be found unqualified for the occupation. My contention is that exactly the same lowering of physical requirements, i.e. gender norming, can take place to 'affirmatively' qualify females for direct ground combat. As I said, "Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow to perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be affirmatively placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar strength and speed."
3. I agree that ONE PARENT should stay home and care for the children. To limit that to the female parent discriminates against males.
dave_behrens@juno.com
Posted 08 Jan 2005 at 2:39pm #
Protect ur sisters and daughters...as far as equal rights goes yeah we should get paid for doing the same job as a man we work just as hard but as well as military if women are doing the same job as a man she should get paid the same ...as for drafting its not a choice so men who r normally responsible should rise to the occasion theyre stronger and can naturally handle it better ...as for u women who want to be drafted go sign ur ass up - ill be waiting to take care of our men while they protect me ...if women were to be drafted yeah id rise to the occasion too im not the type to not step up to responsiblity and i would gladly fight for my country but i just dont see the need to throw women in the mix when we have able men at hand ....like i said if u wanna be a part of the military and ur a women then join more power to u but dont imply that all women are right there with ya
i dont mean to piss anyone off this is just my opinion i dont necessarily agree with complete equality were different (men in general are stronger -not that women we cant fight for themselves we can) but i just think certain things require different consideration.
Posted 13 Mar 2005 at 3:39pm #
First of all, our enemies are all around us,living amongst us; disease, disaster, and denial. Ignorance, hate, and greed render all of us fools, for this world is not ours. Wake up!,if there is war there, then there is war here. This war is not about religion. Wars are fought for greed, hate, and racsism. The Oklahoma City Bombing had nothing to do with it, and it was definitely a terrorist act. Terrorists are achieving exactly what they intend, creating havoc and destruction by the means of fear.
Women are perfectly able to be soldiers, after all wars are won through strategy and defense. If you cannot protect what you are fighting for what purpose is there. I do not believe women should be drafted, those who bear life have the greatest gift and ability to protect life. Let them retain the right to choose for themselves, there is no honor in killing. War is not about equality, it is about death. Death favors all, heroes and criminals, men, women,and children. Will children be next? Let our leaders get out on the field and duel. Then we will see how quickly the war ends.
Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 5:12pm #
its about time woman go into the armed forces they live and enjoy the freedom that we have in this country and for so long men were fighting the wars
Posted 10 Apr 2005 at 4:16pm #
You are all missing the point. Men have to register for the selective service; none of them want to be drafted, but it is their duty. If women truly want to be equal it should be their duty too. It is the SELECTIVE service they are not going to draft single mothers and have a bunch of orphans everywhere. They are not going to put women on the front lines chances are not even that many women would be drafted. As for all of the people saying it is the woman’s place to be baby making machines. Isn’t the pregnant and barefoot stereotype one women have been fighting against? Let’s face it we also need the men to get pregnant (sperm banks can only service so many).
Posted 25 Apr 2005 at 7:48pm #
I understand the viewpoints of all of you who beleive that women should be included in the draft, but there is a difference in equality and wiping out the population. Besides that, how come the suggestion of women being in the draft got by so easily? In the courses of the years 1848 and 1998, women had to fight for their rights to vote, to own land, to have custody of their children, to have the same pay as men in occupations such as medicine and law, but when it comes to women and the draft, there's suddenly an easy answer for that and that they should be included. Women may fight back with "I had to carry your child for 9 months" and "you should go through childbirth for once in your life", and even after these hypothetical children are born, there are responsibilities for raising these children, father or no father. If God forbid there ever was another draft, what happens if mommy and daddy both have to leave? Where do the kids go? I can see where you think this might be equality, but really, America needs their women at home.
Posted 25 Sep 2005 at 5:21pm #
i just wanted to say thank you to everyone that posted comments on this subject. I am a high school student in the process of writing an essay based on this topic and have found all of the pionts you have made to be very well supported and highly helpfull.
Posted 06 Oct 2005 at 9:04am #
womens liberation movemts have been around for a good long while, if the want to fight over position plcement at a walmart why then not complete their equality and be eligible for a draft
Posted 30 Oct 2005 at 10:11pm #
Women, most likely, would be utilized to do the same - not lugging around 70 lbs of gear in a desert, but rather, relaying correspondence or serving in an office or something. And that's not to bash women - just a simple matter of fact that women tend to be less muscular and thus less capable field soldiers.
Technically that statement is incorrect. The U.S. Army did a study using 41 women, and testing them to their limits. The study showed after following a regimen of jogging, weight lifting, and similar rigorous exercise which included running two miles with a 75-pound rucksack and performing squats while holding a barbell on their shoulders, over 75 percent passed. All of which were citizens who had not had any prior strenth training, most have just given birth.
Posted 24 Aug 2006 at 1:38am #
glass ceiling ?men make more than women . oprah,miss rice,paris hilton,etc .last i checked there are alot of females making more than this male
Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 1:26pm #
jenny said on March 9, 2003:
This is by the far the most ignorance i have ever heard. Ok so women at age 16 have kids? Well i am pretty sure a women cant impregnate herself without going to the doctors so those kids also have fathers that would have to be sent to the draft if it does start up. And how is a women religios if they are having kids at 16? Also women arent the only ones that stay home and take care of there kids there are men out there also not all of them but there still are. ANDDDD most of all the army isnt full of a bunch of soldiers there are computer egnineers in the army nurses and all that stuff not all people drafted get put into infantry they get put where they best would fit. And in my opinion by the majority of sex that works as nurses which is women they would play a very helpful roll there and even help keeping file cabnits or documents all set, there are other rolls then killing other people. As MOST women have ranted about in the past this isnt a MANS world and niether country so why dont you step up and prove it and protect your countrys causes and not just letting MEN protect there country. Now i know not all women ignore the draft some do sign up and those are true american women citizens that prove women can handle whatever men can. One more last comment on the pregnancy part i dought the arm would even let a women who was pregnant stay in the army forces.. Also men arent treated good either when they are taken hostage. Women MAY end up being raped but men are also brutaly tourted also.. As you may have seen online or on the news of the man who was decapitated.. So really get your ideas together make a BETTER point and relizie if you ever wanna be equal you have to step up.
Also thank you to all the women that really do prove that women are just as good as men. I am a man myself and belivie women can be if they prove it and some do.
Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 1:27pm #
one more thing to say what does islamic women ebing able to own land have to do with anything also?
Posted 07 Dec 2006 at 2:19pm #
So to sum all of this argument up in 5 years will women be required to sign up?