Women Drafted

[_Redefined]

From thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14632

I didn't want to derail. . .

Selective service also still discriminates on the basis of sex. Females don't have to register and are not drafted. Let the womens libbers start lobbying to get that made completely equal. Kind of like their 'equal pay' for pro tennis players. The men play best of 5, the women best of 3 and they think they are worth the same money as men.

Draft women and you will see a big shift in beliefs of many in leadership across the board.

Very interesting thought Joseph, I consider myself to be pro-woman equality, but I guess I've never thought about it as to particulars such as the draft. For some reason, I guess I'm traditional in the sense that women shouldn't be drafted. I'm sure there are women out there that have the physical stamina to compete with their male-counterparts, but I guess it is the same reason, in sports woman have a separate league than the men. . . it just wouldn't be a fair match-up. Even though I'm pretty sure any man on this board will get their ass handed to them by Jersey Girl in a match-up! ;), but if this woman right here were to be drafted, it wouldn't serve a bit of good to the protection of our country, because I would probably get killed the moment my boot touched down on enemy soil.

Also, I agree that women shouldn't be paid as much as men in professional sports, only because it should be determined by how much money they bring in for their games. Usually women sports don't bring in as big an audience, therefore, less money. However, it should be no different if they actually are able to pull the same crowds as the men. Because, without an audience of adoring fans, sports would be just a hobby.

[_truth dancer]

Draft women and you will see a big shift in beliefs of many in leadership across the board.

I do not think there should be a draft so there! :-)

But if there must be, then yes men and women should be treated equally. (Think Israel).

I know women who can outfight 99% of men, and men who wouldn't hold a candle to the majority of women. The point being, again if young people are forced to go into the military, (I think the whole thing is archaic personally), they should be placed in positions that accommodate their specific skills and abilities.

~td~

[_MsJack]

I'm against the practice of drafting soldiers in general and don't anticipate that it will be used in America any time in the near future.

But if the draft is going to exist, I don't have a problem with including women in the draft. There are plenty of jobs that people can do in the military that don't include ground combat and aren't dependent on physical strength. I've heard that determined women make better fighter pilots and snipers than their male counterparts, but I don't know if that's urban legend or not.

I don't have much of an opinion on women's sports v. men's sports. Seems like the sort of situation where one can make a good case either way.

[_Redefined]

True, but I wasn't thinking that the draft was for anything other than to have "expendables" on the front line. So I was trying to look this up to verify and found this. . .

In 1981, the year after mandatory selective service registration for males was reinstated, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the purpose of the draft was to send soldiers into combat, from which women were barred.

here. . .

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-02/opinion/17480487_1_combat-exclusion-women-s-rights-gulf-war-women

So maybe if they were to do a draft nowadays, it would be for non-combat positions, but I don't see them having a "need" to fill those positions, as those positions would be more desirable, given the option.

As far as the mandatory-service for women in places like Israel. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. The pros and cons, statistics, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of able women, and with the age of technology it probably evens out the field.

[_MsJack]

I wouldn't have a problem with putting women in combat roles, only combat roles where lower physical strength is going to be a significant detriment to them.

For the record, here's what the ERA Web site says about drafting women and equal rights:

Women have participated in every war our country has ever fought, and they now hold top-level positions in all branches of the military, as well as in government defense and national security institutions. They are fighting and dying in combat, and the armed services could not operate effectively without their participation. However, without an ERA, their equal access to military career ladders and their protection against sex discrimination are not guaranteed.

The issue of the draft is often raised as an argument against the ERA. In fact, the lack of an ERA in the Constitution does not protect women against involuntary military service. Congress already has the power to draft women as well as men, and the Senate debated the possibility of drafting nurses in preparation for a possible invasion of Japan in World War II.

Traditionally, and currently, only males are required to register for the draft. After removing its troops from Vietnam in 1973, the United States shifted to an all-volunteer military and has not since that time conscripted registered men into service. In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a male-only draft registration.

In recent years, however, Department of Defense planning memos and Congressional bills dealing with the draft or national service have included both men and women in the system. With or without an ERA in the Constitution, it is virtually certain that a reactivated male-only draft would be legally challenged as a form of sex discrimination, and would likely be found unconstitutional.

Congress could respond by developing a system of national service that would balance equality on the basis of sex with the functional status of individuals. The system could include both military and civilian placements, and exemptions could be granted as always to those unqualified to serve for reasons of physical inability, parental status, or other relevant characteristics.

Since there is presently no imminent prospect of reinstituting the draft and no way to know what its requirements would be if it were reactivated, a discussion about the ERA’s relation to it is primarily theoretical. However, the immediate practical value of putting the ERA into the Constitution would be to guarantee equal treatment for the women who voluntarily serve in the military and to provide them with the “equal justice under law” that they are risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to defend.


I'm not trying to make this thread about the ERA, by the way; I just cite the above excerpt because it approaches the issue with equal rights in mind.

[_Euthyphro]

Why exclude women from combat or the draft categorically? I understand that this probably wouldn't be your choice, nor even the choice most women would make but if there are women who are willing and able to fight in on a front line then why stop them? Even so, the last book I read on Vietnam said the ratio of combat personnel to logistics was 1:7. That's one gun totin' jungle rat for every seven other guys who ride a desk, cook food, inventory supplies, etc. Excluding women because they are barred from one of eight jobs seems illogical. I doubt that ratio has moved much in 40 years. Anyone know?

My dad was drafted in 1969 and served in the Army until 1975. His job in Vietnam was to triangulate on enemy radio transmissions and report. He never went out on patrol. Seems like a woman could do that just as easily.

[_Redefined]

Well let me say it this way, if a draft was required with the need to fill combat postions, then y'all have a better chance of protection if ya drafted Elmo, your furry, loveable little monster, instead of me!

However, I can make sure all you kick-ass fighters get a good cup of morning coffee, given the draft was required for non-combative postions. :)

[_Joseph]

" That's one gun totin' jungle rat for every seven other guys who ride a desk, cook food, inventory supplies, etc."

The term for some of them is REMF's. Direct combat support personnel aren't in that catagory but many who shine seats with their butts are and the term is apt.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The term for some of them is REMF's. Direct combat support personnel aren't in that catagory but many who shine seats with their butts are and the term is apt.

If you ain't Infantry you're a REMF!


All postureing aside, I doubt you'll ever really see women in Combat Arms Jobs. Don't think it could work.

[_Joseph]

Women in history have suffered the same hardships as men. They have crossed the wilderness the same as men. They have fought and died as have men.

Why would one think they could not be good soldiers in most MOS ? Yes, there is a difference in strength that will come into play in some specialties. That can easily be accounted for just as the 5'4" soldier and the 6'4" soldier. Many MOS can easily accomodate any physical size and some benefit from a smaller frame.

How about tank driver or crewmember? Submarine service?

If you are going to talk equal opportunity you ought to be willing to live it.