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.)
Donate Life
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 21 Mar 2011 at 2:03pm #
One thing seems to be missing in this discussion (which is old maybe this realization has popped up since) WAR does not "serve our country" in any positive fashion to begin with. It diserves our nation (bloated military/"defense" spending #1 reason we rank dead last in healthcare out of any industrialized nation, slightly above 3rd world Cuba, its the #1 reason our education system is slipping, environmental pollution hence higher rates of cancer, emotional pollution, on and on). Take one look at American pie budget chart at "notmypriorities.org". It's become an $800 billion wasted industry only putting money into coffers of perpetrators (Bush, Obomba, political interest groups, corrupt industry making bombs, missiles and using marketing spin "we are protecting homeland security"). War and weapons don't protect us, in fact does the opposite. Put the money back into our schools, healthcare etc. Dirty politics aside, the "Selective Service" needs to be destroyed. It is the biggest discrimination against boys/men in the nation, very outdated and based on the myth that "men are physically and emotionally more equipped for battle". Very untrue...it is not so much gender specific as genetic. Plus, war takes vertually no physical strentgh with all robotics tech, and many women can lug around 60 pd equipment better than many men. The boys of next generation will NOT be registering for SS any more than GIRLs of next generation....parents getting wiser, teaching sons war is wrong, we cannot sustain our ugly poilitical "power" acting as global cops to the world. Our "leaders" are all talking about requiring women to register for SS, and we would never go back to draft as there would be huge riots....but women would be drafted if so. This is step in right direction to ending our wars....as God forbid people still think women are so physically and mentally handicapped by their gender they need to be "protected". The fact of the matter is, the rich barbie doll look alike whose family values believe in any merit to war is far more apporpriate to go to war than the Ken pacifist with morals against war. We cannot discriminate a persons heart and soul for something so mundane as gender. Otherwise, roll back all this "equality".
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 21 Mar 2011 at 2:24pm #
As I woman myself...a 50 y/o woman with a 7 y/o angelic son....I must step in here. You young women out there that are still bitching and moaning about "equal pay"....I don't buy it. As a woman, I earned an MBA and climbed the surreal corporate ladder to Senior level....while bitching and moaning as I though for sure...as a feeble woman, I just must be making "less" than male executive colleagues at my level, only to find out I was making MORE than 20 men in my dept. I learned not to be so selfish. Women can and ARE making as much, many making MORE than men out there if you just work hard enough. Now, about the selfish thing. How DARE any of you make comments like "I only wanted "equal pay" why should I be "forced" into war when I am not READY for it"? ARe you insinuating that somehow boys/men are READY for it? That testosterone is like a can of spincach that instantly makes men able to leap over tall buildings and fly like superman, punch through walls like popeye? That somehow men are "more violent" or don't need to be protected from the unecessary volence of our ugly nonsustainable wars? Guns, weapons, army tanks are no more "boys toys" than girls toys other than in a social construct. Men are not physcially/emotionally any more equipped for battle than women....its more genetic. women have been in wars since Amazon days...before Christ.....in the Civil War and others. If YOU belive in any merit to war then YOU are the proper targets for war, NOT any boy/man that is being brought up not to believe that aggressive foreign policy serves our nation. Our next gen of boys will be braver than that...it takes far more courage to say NO to the pretnse of looking "Patiotic" or "tough" than to don uniform with an angry attitude to go fight "terrorism" with more terror. NOBODY should be required to regester for selective service, and looks like if that archaic system remains any longer, women will be required to register as well. OUr sons of next generation just might not register at all, without any CO status right up front... Why should women be "protected" in such neurtotic, self proclaimed "unpatriotic" fashion and not men? A life is a life, a limb a limb. why are there men that hurt women? Those are the ones FORCED and TOUGHT that somehow war is right, and that MEN are proper "warriors"s. Its the year 20111...time to let go of such Stone aged beliefs.
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 21 Mar 2011 at 4:35pm #
"Jenny"....you've got to get a grip on reality. first of all, do you really think the Bible is the world of the Lord? I was brought up with the "Catholic" faith (still go to Catholic church) went to church every w/e during my upbrining...pray every night, have done a Bible study. But all this makes me no more "religious" than the next person. In fact I've come to realize much of the Catholic faith is wrong, corrupt, sinful in many ways. (molestation of little boys....about the most heinous crime, far worse even than raping a women!) But anyhow, the Bible was re-written through course of 1500 years by sinful man. LIkely the only words of the Lord were those within some on new testament (none of old) and the 10 commandments. Within those are "thou shalt not kill". I don't believe that Jesus was a man of war or that anything do to with war is not looked at through the eyes of God as a huge sin. And if you want to live in a world where as a woman you are so feeble you must remain in the kitchen, or continue to believe that if something to that tune was "written in the Bible, so must be right"....you are living in a very unreal world. certainly not the modern one. I agree with Erik, and all the others that tell you to get real!! YOU do NOT deserve to be "Protected" any more than boys/men...Nor does any girl or woman in the world. Every human deserves to be safe, "protected" from violence. Where is your humanity? Hate to say...but you sound like a judgemental sexist bitch. AMEN.
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 21 Mar 2011 at 2:44pm #
Good point Sarah! Yes, its all political corruption to begin with, including our ugly wars themsevles. We are actually only serving to bring our nation down with war/spending on military and "defense" (put into quotes as none of this violence defends the USA....just the opposite). But its not the government per se that is sexist and corrupt...many facets of our gov does great things for humanity like the environmental orgs helping protect human health from cancer causing chemicals in Bay etc. It's the Federal government that is so corrupt in every respect....right down to funding the NCLB act for our schools which is only PUSHING kids so hard like little robots, even kids with 130 IQ drop out of school.....13 y/o girl with all A's took her own life when she got one "bad grade". Its all Politically corruption. And the women are not to blame for the sexism of having men regiister for SS not women...(at least those not acting like prma dona's with attitude "we women do it all, bake clean house, work, change diapers....blah blah....") All not true....I see lots of men taking kids to school, picking them up, acting as stay at home Dad's even though they have Masters degrees and once made more or same as wives....WhY? Because people are realizing life is short, spend time with kids now. Anyhow, those same corrupt politicians (Bush, Obama even) don't really "support the troops" otherwise you'd see their daughters/sons go to war. Will Obomba's daughters go to war someday? Probably not, protected like specimens in agar waiting to be cultured, while he uses the marketing spin for military profits "we are fighting for our security and freedom" and the naive people believing in it. Anyone who still believes that somehow America's wars can be justified, they are only ones whose daughters/sons (gender makes no differenc) should be expected to even think of registering or going to war....not any sons/fathers, daughters, ANYONE that keeps the fallacy alive. The bottom line is, gender does not matter one bit anymore.
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 21 Mar 2011 at 3:01pm #
Michelle, thank you for not taking the feeble, useless female role. so many girls/women out there seem to think they are physically and mentally handicapped by their gender....then why should we let them out of their closets locked up safely from society?
But one thing.....as a nation we need to let go of any pretense that somehow we are "fighting for our country" at war. Google "US Foreign Policy...Another "Inconvenient Truth" and read the article I wrote (I am a writer for magazine currently) It's based on much research and either myelf or people I've interviewed that have traveled around the world. It's an eye opener to what we have been collectviely conditioned as AMericans to bleive, right down to our History books which are reflections of the truth, mostly lies. Our basic freedoms, liberty, justice, etc are ideals that we throught we were (are) "fighting for" but these very ideals are being diminished in the U.S. BECAUSE of our wars.
Patirotism means love of country, it has NOTHING to do with standing up for our wars. And men are no more the proper "warriors" in all this politically inspired corruption than women, serving nothing but the $$ put into the perpetrators pockets, taking out of the American peoples taxes. Taken out of our education, healthcare, environmental justice, social services......Let's stop believing in all this violence. 9/11 was horrible, but it happend BECUSE the U.S. sjipped missiles to hostile nation (for profits) who turned around and attacked Palestinean soil....and we keep on going with all this unecessary voilence for the pretsnse of being a "powerful" nation. Men do not belong in violent situations any more than women....its all been conditioned. And people turn around and wonder why some man might end up violent, angry, hruting women? They were forced or conditioned to believe killing people is "brave" and good. Its all a big vicious cycle. The best thing we could do for our country is to protest against our wars. Keep ALL humans safer.....Stop believing violence can stop violence. There are in fact far fewer "terrorist" than media hype suggests....and most "terrrorism" only happens in countries engaged with war. violence begets violence.
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 21 Mar 2011 at 4:55pm #
Katherine....and others. Don't know if anyone still reading this blog. I came across it in writing an article. While your statement about any draft needing to be equal (men and women drafted) is a step in the right direction in terms of equality....and I agree that NOBODY should be sent out to fight MEN any more than WOMEN....here's where your statement gets a tad bit biased. YOu say you "don't want there to be a draft for war, so you won't go out of your way to add people to the list of draftees". That is horrible! So you think men should conitnue to be discriminated against because of....hmmmmm.....why? If we want to end our useless wars, one good way would to have a serious wake up call to the American people. People will not see the absurdity of it all unless ALL American people feel the pressure...it makes no sense to keep the gender discrimination in on top of the opprression of Americas violent warlike ways to begin with. It just keeps that layer of inequality in. Women will never (and should never) be paid equal to the dollar, nor have same rights in voting (may as well roll that one back) if they can vote without "registering for selective service" while men need to register for that bullshit just to vote! did you even KNOW that unconstitutional, unfair law in place? Let's have same "laws"....women must register for SS or fined $250K if caught, must prove their CO status, may be put into prison if not registered. Men do NOT deserve this treatment any more than women. Are you still under false notion that guns, army tanks are boys toys not girls toys, or that boys/men like violence more?Boys are TUGHT this from society pressures.....its NOT inherent. Get with it! No wonder so many young men in the 80's (and still) comitt suicide, inject themselves with steroids, feel so depressed. We still have sexist, biased people out there making them feel they need to be a "man". What is testosterone, a metaphor for manhood?
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 10 May 2011 at 7:15pm #
Lisa, you sad, pathetic, feeble female (I am a woman telling you this) But more seriously, you sound profoundly selfish, inhumane, judgmental, uneducated. There are at least 3 million (reported) cases on full time Dad's in America today...Dad's with MBA's, Ph.d's, that were making as much if not more than their wives out working while THEY take care of the kids. For whatever reason, (one I know of had cancer scare and life is short...wants to be with his sons while they are young), Most realize that life is short and money not most critical thing. But also, we are talking women ages 18-25 registering for SS here....Most women that young don't have kids yet. They ARE still kids, as are the young men that age. Neither men or women should register for selective service, and whether or like or or not, if we ever reinstated the draft, women would be drafted. That is fact, thank God, as there is no compelling reason to discriminate against boys/men so much. We discriminate against boys/men in the USA far more than we do women, people don't realize it. Women now make more overall than men, due to fear of "discrimination", more men are getting laid off due to economic downturn (number one reason for that downturn is spending on our stupid useless wars). The only reason we continue down this road is greed and the increasingly false notion the USA is a "super power". Men are not superman in that super power ego. Testosterone is not a can of spinach making boys/men instantly like Popeye, able to leap tall buildings and punch through walls. Not to mention fact it takes barely any physical power to fight modern wars with all the robotics warfare out there (wasted taxpayer money that could have gone into our schools instead) You can still prove your CO status like men need to in that case My husband is the bravest man I've ever met....back in 1973 when he was drafted or asked to register for SS, he had the guts to write in CO status, that killing people is against his moral, ethical and religious beliefs. That was far braver than someone crumbling under false pretense of being "Patriotic", and allowing himself to be discriminated against. Thank God, my little boy would never be here today if he were not so brave as to SAVE LIVES rather than fall for false notion that war "protects our nation" in any way. Get a grip....you need to get with the times. Its 2011, not 1940.
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 #
[quote comment="42"]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.[/quote]
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?
Posted 10 Dec 2006 at 1:53pm #
Now, I am all for being drafted. as a women, it's my duty to protect and support my family. we are a huge family, us united states citizens, it's only right that we all should be able to protect our brothers, sisters, daughters and sons.
i agree someone needs to stay home and nurse and love the children at home. you cant just leave children stranded at the home. thats just insensitive and unfair to the children. if theres nobody to take care of the children, then some adult in the household (male or female) should stay and help the children. if it's a single parent, they cant be sent out. someone needs to be there for the children.
if there are not children that are needed to take care of (again, by either men or women), then everyone should be eligable for the draft. if someone cant be in the infantry, then there are plenty of other places on's talents can be utalized. some can build things, make rations of food, relay communications, nursing, computer work, making reports, strategy, anomg many other possible military need. its a common misconception that all people in the military are out on thr frontlines, for it is not true. people only believe that due to mass media attention to the people doing all the fighting. the people behind the scenes are just as important. imagine the military as a film: actors get all the credit, but what about the people behind the camera taking care of the makeup, costumes, props, directing, even running the camera? everyones roles are just as necessary, although not reconised or appreciated.
no matter who you are, whatever talents you have, you can help out the military in some way. women may be less muscular (in general. i dont mean to steriotype) and be less suited to the infantry, but they can do so much else. everyone, men and women, have their different intelligences and atributes. however their skills can be used, i feel we have every right to be apart of it.
we women have strived to gain equality for awhile. the biggest jump to gain it however happened in the last 100-150 years. in the early 1900's, women in england tried desprately to get the vote. they tried talking about it, but no man would give them the vote. it then became "deeds, not words". the call was to act. women stopped the wheels of commerce by linking arms and holding hands and stopping delivers from being made. some even went as far as chaining them selves to locomotives to keep them from going. they went to jail and were political prisoners. they marched up and down streets to get noticed.
i know the above has nothing to do with military, but it's more to illustrate the fact that we have amazing strength and persistance. we will do what is needed to get the desired result. we are not as weak and frail as we have been historically ilustrated.
i also just want to say thank you to all who've come here and cntributed to the discussion. i need to write an essay on this very topic and you have made me more knowledgeable on this matter. ~Dana
Posted 11 Dec 2006 at 1:02pm #
I am a women in the United States Army, and from what i have experienced through training, women are being treated as equal as men in the military. Of coarse you have your occasional jerk who make jokes and underestimates you. Myself and others were scrawny small girls who achieved just as much as some of the huge buff guys. I really do think women are just as capable if not more qualified for some of the jobs offered in todays military. So I am supporting the draft. I dont have children, but for all of you who say women should stay home and take care of the kids and house work... Do you relize this is the 21st century. Women work just as hard as men, we are out working 50 hour weeks, along with our husbands. Dont get me wrong if you have a newborn, the mother is ofcoarse the primary care giver. I believe in my country and im tired of being told women cant handle front line combat because they are emotionally unstable?! That sounds like stereotyping to me.
Posted 13 Dec 2006 at 9:42am #
Women should obviously be entered in the draft. They always want equal rights until talk of the draft comes up. Just because women have babies doesn't mean that they cannot go to war. The draft doesnt necessarily mean that you are going to the war it just means that you could possibly go to war if you choose to.
Posted 22 Dec 2006 at 10:26am #
I can almost promise you all that if women are ever drafted, there would be an influx of pregnant women into society. The army would not draft expectant women, and there is no way the constitutional can or worms directing drafted women not to get pregnant would be opened.
Posted 17 Mar 2007 at 2:51am #
This is a real simple issue, we as a culture don't support women going to war because we think women can not match up to the physical strength and endurance of a man. But here is what we should focus on, we don't fight wars hand to hand any more, all the strength you need is in your finger to pull the trigger, women can do that. And as for endurance we have these things called vehicles, yep women can ride in vehicles as well. As for women being emotionally frail so are lots of men, once again this is no excuse for gender discrimination. The United States should be ashamed of itself for it's politically incorrect actions and so should anyone who supports gender discrimination.
Posted 15 Apr 2007 at 10:29am #
I am for women being included in the draft. First off, let me say that being in the army is the last thing I wish to do with my life. This is also true for some men who must sign up in case the draft is reinstated. But to have a fair society where men and women are treated as equals, we, who are opposed to the draft, must put aside those opinions.
(My numbers are incorrect, but think of the big picture.) Let's say the government is reinstating the draft, and they need 1,000 people. If both men and women have INVOLUNTARILY (meaning they were forced to) signed up for the draft, don't you believe the government would chose those who WEREN'T mothers and WEREN'T fathers? Do you really think the government would tear apart a family by sending both the mother and the father to war? There is less of a chance of that with MORE people signing up for the draft.
"We already go through childbirth" Not all women plan to have a child (I certainly will not). Some turn to adoption, or decide to be childless. Without men, women wouldn't even go through childbirth. Why let the egg take all the credit when there had to be a sperm?
"Women may get raped" So can men. Why put the safety of one gender above the safety of another when the same thing can happen to both of them? Let's say a ship was sinking and there weren't any lifeboats, and a mother had one lifejacket. She had twin children, a boy and a girl. She hands the lifejacket to the girl, stating as if it were obvious, "She could drown". But what about the boy?
The government's official opinion is that it is "the law" for women to not be included in the draft. It was also "the law" for women to not be able to vote. We gained that right? Why not gain this responsibility? Two responsibilities of a citizen stated in the Constitution are to vote and to sign up for the draft. Without performing those responsibilities, are women not citizens?
Posted 20 Apr 2007 at 4:31pm #
Being drafted isn't a right. Remaining silent is a right, if one gets drafted, then attending that draft is a law. Remaining silent is not a law (just an example of how I see the fine difference) I really have a hard time seeing how having equal rights suddenly makes women equally as capable as men in all areas.. Sure, Sally can scoop out ice cream just as good as Bobby therefore she should be paid the same but Bobby probably has an easier time blowing off someones face with an weapon on the battlefield. Women and men are different psychologically and war has even a huge psychological impact on men --- how can anyone want women to be subject to the same? It's terrible that it happens, but what happen to protecting the women and children first? Ethics in America are taking a turn for the worse when men themselves want their wives, daughters, and sisters being drafted as well. EQUALLY, battlefield and all. Then again, the men who think that probably have no wife, or daughter, and don't care for their sisters. That sort of belief doesn't really qualify a person as a real MAN anyway. Or maybe I had it wrong, are women supposed to be fighting and dying on the battle field to protect their men while the men stay home and nurse their babies?
I guess believing that men should be fighting to protect their women and children is an old-fashioned belief now. Pretty sad.
Posted 20 Apr 2007 at 4:53pm #
Also, in response to those who suggested women being drafted for non-combative jobs --- think about it. We don't get drafts because of a lack of people in non-combative jobs, we get drafts because we need more people to go fight in battle. Besides, we don't have a lack of non-combative jobs in the U.S. There are many women already in the U.S. filling in for these positions.
I think its hysterical when guys say, "IF YOU WANT EQUAL RIGHTS, THEN YOU SHOULD BE DRAFTED TOO!" Women DON'T have equal rights. "Glass ceiling." Unfortunately, its a common misconception to think we have equal rights --- and women ARE being drafted. I personally know women in the NATIONAL GUARD who are being drafted. Obviously no one ever heard of a back door draft. However, its a "no duh" that these women wont be served up on the battle field. Funny how US slips by with doing this and that and hardly anyone realizes it.
Posted 21 Apr 2007 at 2:30pm #
To Stephanie:
The women you say are in a "back door draft" are probably happening because they signed up for the military. In doing so, you get alot of benefits: financial aid for schooling, government grants, etc. the only thing with it is you may be called to do some service due to the fact that you signed up for it.
you probably arn't aware of this, but in 2005 (october if i remember correctly), there was a law passed where women cannot be put on the front line of battle. we're not in that much danger.
you're asking for "equality when it's convinient". that is, same job salaries, same opporotunities, and to be viewed as equals. i am a woman myself- a girl, actually, but i firmly believe that we women also have a duty to be next to our fathers and brothers, fighting along siodes them. or if not fighting, cooking, or nursing, or being a secratarial assistant. if i went into the military, i'd like to be a photographer for them.
if we really want equality, then we have to show that we are willing to accept the responsabilities and duties that come with it.
Posted 09 May 2007 at 1:23pm #
[quote comment="50"]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.[/quote]
Well if you have not noticed those days are just about over and war is everywhere so it would be nice if you could jump into the 21st century with us
Posted 09 May 2007 at 1:26pm #
[quote comment="74"]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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]
yeah but men have bigger brains so therefore i would be able to outsmart you in battle- its a fact
Posted 10 May 2007 at 8:02pm #
i'd like to ask you all to keep the discussion clean and for us to talk as adults here. by cursing and insulting the genders and races of people in here, you not only offend alot of people in the room and discussion, but you may also end up turning this into a flame session rather then a discussion on a sensitive matter. I may be a high schooler like alot of you might be, but i appreciate having as nice discussion rather ten being insulted by my gender and
in reply to Zach:
actually, thats not exactly true. the size of a brain has nothing to do with how much intelligence someone has. however, men have a more logical brain pattern in general. while women may (in general) have higher IQ's, men have a more logical mind, and therefore we are equal in my minds eye. and remember; the military service is not just IN BATTLE, it's all the other jobs, so whereas you might be able to kill somebody, there are alot of other intelligences that can be used to aid everyone involved with war.
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 6:13pm #
I am so sick and tired of some of the women on this site acting like they are the only ones who can take care of children. I hate to bust your bubble ladies, but men are just as capable of parenting children in every way except breast feeding. Numerous psychological and sociological studies have shown this. You are also a little behind the times to say that women do 'all the housework'. In the contemporary american household, men typically do between 40-50% of housework, which includes caring for children.
So please, don't play the martyr role to try and get out of the draft, it's a load of bologna.
Oh, and for the women saying they could 'kick a man's ass', it's a bit easy to make absurd statements like that on a blog. If your argument is so weak you have to resort to idle threats, perhaps you should take a minute to rethink your position.
Posted 11 Oct 2007 at 2:13am #
I first would like to thank all of you for your posts...I'm giving a presentation in my philosophy class about women's rights regarding the draft. All of your arguments and ideas have been extremely helpful.
As far as my own opinions go, I recently turned 18 and, as a woman, I can tell you it's a huge relief knowing that I didn't have to sign up for the draft. The idea that my male friends could, if the government deems it necessary, be shipped off to fight in a war they didn't want terrifies me.
However, I think it is selfish for us to spin this issue to focus on what we want. I believe it's safe to say that very few people want to be drafted, but since when was war what anyone wanted? The real issue is what SHOULD be done. I won't take time to repeat the arguments previously voiced, but this issue needs to go beyond basic emotion. We live as one country and we need to be willing to accept our responsabilities in equal doses with our freedoms.
Posted 02 Dec 2007 at 7:04pm #
As a woman i feel that we should have to sign up for the draft. I dont think we should leave it up to men to fight for this country in a time of need. If the country needs to enable the draft, they need soldiers, it shouldnt matter if it is a man or woman. For the people that say women arent as strong as men, i agree we arent. i know this. however, women sign up for the armed forces and fight for this country everyday, so that shows that women have the capablities to do the labor required of military personel. some say that women need to stay at home because they are the primary care giver of children, well just because we are the ones that primarily take care of the children, doesnt mean that a man isnt just as good as a woman. i have also heard from other sources that some people feel that a womans life is more valuable than a mans, and i am sorry but it isnt. there is no way that i feel my life is more important than a mans. in no way is my life more important than my husband, brother, or other males in this country. women want equal rights....but stop fighting when it puts them in danger, or is for something they dont really want to do. well to bad, if you are going to fight for equal rights, fight for equality on all subjects, not just the ones that benefit you.
Posted 09 Dec 2007 at 10:01am #
I know, I'm posting again.
Just something for all of you who keep up with this to think about.
My friend has muscles the size of my head. My friend pulled off a metal gate that was blocking an opening to our other friend's basement. My friend climbs trees that are bigger than my house (not that big. I'll rephrase that. Bigger than the White House). My friend can beat up and will beat up anyone that crosses oru paths. My friend is the best football player in our grade. My friend, if forced to sign up for the draft, would complain of its stupidity but would be secretly glad to serve our country. And my friend is a tight-shirt wearing All American Rejects-listening girl. And a great dancer. o.O (that's probably what some of your faces look like, judging by your so-called arguments)
She would be proud to step up to the plate of being a citizen. So would I. She would love to be on the front line. She couldn't. I would hate to be somewhere far away from that line but that would be my preferred area of work. I could.
Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 1:13am #
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 or sign-up for Selective Service, 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 involuntary 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 of the children. To limit that to the female parent discriminates against males. It perpetuates the sexist stereotype that only females are capable of nurturing children.
4. I firmly believe that a ‘quid pro quo' exists between civil rights and civil responsibilities. To require only males to perform, involuntarily, a civil responsibility such as military service SHOULD increase male civil rights vis-à-vis the civil rights of females. Said differently, female civil rights should be diminished because female civil responsibilities are diminished with respect to involuntary military service.
Posted 22 Feb 2008 at 1:09pm #
[quote comment="67"]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![/quote]
Reading this entry from a couple of years ago made me realize how people can use very stupid arguments to try and make a point. While most of the men were off to war, women were at home working, but if women had been drafted along with men, alot of men would still be home working, and they would still be providing and producing for the war effort. THe reason women were off working was because their men were gone, and they couldn't live off of their jobs anymore, this made them get up and take life into their own hands.
Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 3:03am #
Of course, in a perfect world, there would be no need of a draft right?
The possibility of the draft being re-instated, I believe, is very low. There are so many anti-draft sentiments left over from Vietnam that any President who chooses to re-instate the draft would be comitting political suicide.
Nevertheless, in the potential circumstance that a draft is again needed, the rights (and responsabilities) of both men and women should not be compromised or waived. Both genders need to step forward if they are ever called to the service of their country. What else is fair?
Saying a woman cannot perform as well militarily as a man, though sterotypically true, has nevertheless been proved to be an inaccurate statement. Similarly, saying a man cannot care for children as well as a woman is just as sexist, and equally untrue.
Long story short (too late!) the law should be changed. Hopefully our country will never have to face another draft. But just in case...
Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 3:27am #
I have an interesting sidenote:
Israel is one of the few countries in the world that drafts women. however, the Israeli military has been experiencing a growing number of problems with women resisting the draft.In Israel women don't go to prison if they resist the draft, but they do have to endure a rigorous process of being released known as "the conscience committee." Although this process is extremely difficult to pass,the numbers of women resisting the draft are growing yearly. Despite the Israeli military's efforts to retain them, women are succeeding. However, the process is often so emotionally traumatizing that it's leaving women in less-than-ideal mental states. More information is availible at: http://www.wri-irg.org/news/2003/womenco.htm .
My questions are these:
To women: How many of you would refuse a draft in our country? I know I would try to get out of it if I had the option.
To men: How would you feel if the numbers of dissenting conscripted women in our country were vastly larger than those of men?
To everyone: Would this create more problems than before?
I agree that women's responsibilities need to be equal those of men, and if that means being drated as well, then I'm all for it. But this is just something to ponder. If it happens in Israel, why can't it happen here?
Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 3:01pm #
I quote myself in my post of 6 July 2004:
"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."
The continuance of male gender discrimination is guaranteed!! There will be no vast uprising of females against conscription, because females will have a vastly different experience discharging their civil responsibilities. Gender norming of physical requirements for direct ground combat will not be gender normed. Females will be "exempt" from these dirty, dangerous jobs for lack of strength and speed. However, I see no end to gender norming for affirmative placement of females in civilian occupations which require similar strength and speed.
Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 10:44pm #
thanx for all the comments, i'm currently writing a speech for my speech class on whether women should be included in the draft or not. you've all been a great help and provided alot of information. so thanks.
Posted 13 May 2009 at 6:54pm #
If woman don't have to Register for the draft, men should not have to Register for the draft.
Posted 21 Nov 2009 at 12:27pm #
Hello! I know this is an older article, but you bring up some very important facts about women's rights which I completely agree with. I love how you stepped up to the plate for women, we need more women like you! Thank you, and even if you don't get this post, I still apreciate your words of wisom.
Fabia
Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:20pm #
Fabia...
I'm not female, I'm male.
I do believe that most women are strong enough to perform direct ground combat (think little scout/sniper or tunnel rat). All women can perform supportive roles, along with males.
Serving in all military specialties with males will demonstrate, absolutely, that females have earned complete civil rights because they have discharged their full civil responsibilities.
Posted 17 Jan 2011 at 9:12pm #
It's one thing to say you go girl it's another thing to be be treated just like the guys, the liberal media and feminist are always pointing to that one talented female and they are out their, but in the real world you have to look at the average female competing with the average guy, if women really want to go to war their are a lot of guys who will be more then willing to let them take their place on the front lines.feminisism has made life a lot easier for men and they might not want to give up them up.
Posted 02 Nov 2011 at 12:21am #
Someone up above said that all we need is someone who can pull the trigger, and that women could do that. I just want to say that it is statistically proven that women take longer to pull the trigger than men do.
Posted 18 Dec 2011 at 11:56am #
YES women should be in the draft. The draft was manitory for ALL males BUT that doesnt mean ALL males had to serve. it was on a system. i keep seeing people comment like who will raise the kids? well if a single woman was on the draft list whats her reasoning then??? and as far as everyone should experience childbirth i think is absurd. women talk about the miracle of life and how its the greating gift yet only want others to feel the pain of it and you wouldnt get to experience the miracle of birth if it wasnt for a MEN! so get off your high horse and accept the fact that equality is not as fun as the feminist have promised you. and wage gap between men and women was miguided. a lot of the facts werent taken into account. like Men more then women generally try to go for those corporate jobs. do more dangerous jobs. work overtime,