Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shouldn't the Draft Include Women Too?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
tlewis Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:03 PM
Original message
Shouldn't the Draft Include Women Too?

Women are serving in Iraq along with men, unlike in Vietnam, as made abundantly clear by Jessica Lynch. So if a draft were to be reinstated next year, shouldn't it include all 18 year olds, regardless of gender?

I think that feminist organizations should file gender discrimination lawsuits against any proposed male-only draft.

Why?

My thinking is this. Can you see any conservative congressperson voting "to send our 18-year-old daughters off to war" ???? It would be political suicide.

If the choice were a "gender-blind" draft or no draft, it could sink the whole proposal. A "re-elected" Bush might be a lame duck, but members of Congress would still have an eye on the next election, and they would take the brunt of voting to send "our daughters" to war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. It will...
Did some research today, under Hollings/Rengel the draft includes women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Plan for a Special Skills Draft
Congress approved a plan to draft doctors, nurses, and others with special skills during the 1980s. Under this plan, both men and women could be drafted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karabekian Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. it should
doesn't equal rights also mean equal responsibilities?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. it was a joke during Vietnam that drafting women
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 05:07 PM by stopthegop
would stop the draft...one way the 'women's groups' don't actually wanna be equal I guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Men don't want to be drafter either, by my observation
There's equality for you: no draft for either men or women. I'm sure that most of both men and women are quite happy with that equal arrangement.

--Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
53. you are speaking for what women's group?
i have always said that the world would be a different place if every young woman knew how to handle an m-16. when you relieve someone of their responsibilities, you infantilize them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. NO!!
Because the fuckers will do it - they don't care about life - male or female - and if I'm not mistaken - I believe women are included in the draft.

Remember, with Republicans controlling all aspects of government, no independent media, no legitimate voting - they are going to do what they damn well please - and tell us how much we're going to like it. I'll be damned if my daughter goes - not going to happen, I guarantee it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. (sigh) Some information is soooo easy to get ...
BACKGROUNDER:
WOMEN AND THE DRAFT IN AMERICA


While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Women who served in the past, and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers, all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

After America’s draft ended in 1973, the Selective Service System was maintained in a standby status, just in case a return to conscription became necessary during a crisis. After March 29, 1975, men no longer had to register and Selective Service was placed in "deep standby." But then, in 1980, President Carter reactivated the registration process for men in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in reaction to reports that the standby Selective Service System might not meet wartime requirements for rapid manpower expansion of the active and reserve forces.

Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DOD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DOD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women.

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DOD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

In 1992, a Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces reexamined the issue of registration and conscription of women. In its November 1992 report, by a vote of 11 to 3, the Commission recommended that women not be required to register for or be subject to conscription. The Commission cited the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upholding the exclusion of women from registration as the basis for its recommendation. The Commission also discussed enacting existing ground combat specialties exclusion policies into law to provide an additional barrier to the amendment of the MSSA to provide for the conscription of women. However, an appendix to its report suggested that public opinion was divided on the issue. The appendix, which included the results of a random telephone survey of 1,500 adults, showed that, in the event of a draft for a national emergency or threat of war (and assuming an ample pool of young men exists), 52 percent of respondents indicated women should be drafted, about 39 percent of respondents indicated women should not be drafted, and 10 percent responded they did not know.

In May 1994, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to update its mobilization requirements for the Selective Service System and, as a part of the effort, "continue to review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women from registration now that they can be assigned to combat roles other than ground combat." In its subsequent report, the DOD position remained "that the restriction of females from assignments below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, provides justification from exempting women from registration (and a draft) as set forth in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)." However, the report also recognized the vastly increased role being played by women in each of the Armed Services who, in Fiscal Year 1994, comprised 16 percent of recruits. "Because of this change in the makeup of the Armed Forces," the report observed, "much of the congressional debate which, in the court’s opinion, provided adequate congressional scrutiny of the issue...(in 1981) would be inappropriate today." While maintaining that it was not necessary to register or draft women, the DOD review concluded "the success of the military will increasingly depend upon the participation of women."

In 1998, at the request of U.S. Senator Charles Robb (D-VA), ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) addressed a variety of questions related to gender equity in the military. Included was a budget and resource examination of the impact of requiring women to register with Selective Service. The GAO report* did not address the pros and cons regarding the exclusion of women from ground combat positions or from the Selective Service registration requirement, nor did it make any policy recommendations. Instead, GAO simply described the DOD position that there is no need to register women as "being consistent with its policy of restricting women from direct ground combat."

In May 2003, a Federal District Judge in the case of Schwartz, et al. v. Brodsky, Acting Director of the Selective Service System, Civil Action No. 03-10005-EFH, dismissed a suit filed by five Massachusetts' students who challenged the constitutionality of the male only registration requirement. Adhering to Rostker v. Goldberg, Senior U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington said the courts can't interfere with Congress' control over the military, and nothing has changed since the Supreme Court upheld the all-male draft in 1981. The interests advanced by the Military Selective Service Act remains the preparation for a draft of combat troops, and women continue to be barred from ground combat. Additionally, he said, if a deeply-rooted military tradition of male-only draft registration is to be ended, it should be accomplished by that branch of government which has the constitutional power to do so - the Congress of the United States, the elected representatives of the people.

GAO examined the issue from Selective Service cost and staffing points of view, recognizing that registration of women would require legislative action and operational and budgetary changes. "Selective Service System could register women if its authorizing legislation, the Military Selective Service Act, is amended to allow registering women," the report stated. The report provided cost estimates for expanding the registration program to include women, and included an historical summary providing perspectives on women and the draft since America’s transition to an all-volunteer military in the 1970s.

(Complied and Edited by The Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Selective Service System,January 2004)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlewis Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Good Background Info...
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 07:21 PM by tlewis
Thanks for that "largely historical document." But since a proposal to reinstate the draft will be made because the United States is already engaged in combat -- not just preparing for potential conflict -- and the systems already in place to fill the armed forces with soldiers have proved insufficient, all the arguments will have to be made again.

This sentence stood out for me:

"Additionally, (Judge Harrington) said, if a deeply-rooted military tradition of male-only draft registration is to be ended, it should be accomplished by that branch of government which has the constitutional power to do so - the Congress of the United States, the elected representatives of the people."


And whether those elected representatives decide to make women go or make them stay home, we can crucify them for it. The "women/draft" issue is a loser for conservatives no matter how you slice it.

We are already at war -- a war that we started -- and that changes everything. All those previous decisions will have to be re-examined and re-argued.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. The arguments won't "have to be made again" ...
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 10:55 PM by TahitiNut
... in order to reactivate the draft, even though some will likely choose to make them. The legal and regulatory framework already exists. AFAIK, no additional laws need be passed. Since it's an Executive function, I believe the President already has the legal authority to reactivate the draft. The Congress would have to pass (potentially) simple legislation to preempt that authority and do it themselves. While they're at it, they could modify existing laws and regulations, but I doubt it would include women.

Remember, the draft is essentially three phases: (1) registration (where only males are currently required to register), (2) classification (currently inactive function of assigning deferments to registrants), and (3) selection (inactive, and now guided by lottery rather than whim). Since there are no currently registered females, it'd create a huge backlog of registrants if sexism were taken out of the draft. That, in and of itself, is a pragmatic logistical/economic impediment to women being treated as equal citizens under the law.


On edit: I just remembered - Congress would have to pass an appropriations measure to provide funding for a Draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AGD4y2357y Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. No
"I believe the President already has the legal authority to reactivate the draft"

Congress gave the president the authority to do so at his choice some time ago, but put a sunset date on his power. It expired sometime in the late 70s/early 80's. (sorry, inet trouble limits my ability to look it up)

If a draft is to start legally congress will now be the only body that can start it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes
all women and daughters of families that support the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wwagsthedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. the * twins, no?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. first to go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
40. I think the Chimp should be forced to choose which one should go. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Like they'd actually go......
with the example their cowardly father set for them - there is no way - they'd wind up having anal cysts and what not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. they'd flunk the
drug tests anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Sending flunking drug test guys
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 05:31 PM by TNOE
now..... have been - BUT make no mistake, this will not apply to the Politican's kids. They should be the first ones to line up. If all the Republicans signed up - we wouldn't need a draft. Seems simple enough to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Yes - start with the Bush twins
Then all the Young Repukes sons and daughters of Congress, etc. And all those Young Repukes on campuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
45. Sorry, you don't get to opt out of a draft.
If we draft, it should be everybody of eligible age with no deferments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. I remember during bush war 1, a young soldier, returning, of
female variety, was being asked about women in combat. Her very pointed reply was something like, "If it's wrong for your daughters to die in combat, why is it okay for your sons?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Good point.
For those that think war is good - You go fight then! Leave my kids out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. absolutely, and i dont believe in draft
not for the boys or the girls. nor the war.

and i do feel that the girls need to be included in the draft. cant even call them men and women yet, they arent old enough, still boys and girls. sick

this is from woman. and a lifetime of equality, i dont see how we can do anything else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yes
I oppose the draft on principle, but my feeling on this matter is, if women can enlist in the armed forces, why in the world can't they be drafted into them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
15. No, absolutely not!!!
Nor should it include men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Just chimps who deserted their posts during time of war,
eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. Well does this mean
ERA will finally be passed? If they want to included women in the draft then they damn well better pass ERA!
BTW one of the conservative arguments Against passing ERA was that women would be drafted.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlewis Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Conservative Arguments

Conservatives seem to have lots of arguments about "protecting" women by maintaining strict "traditional" gender roles -- and forcing girls to join the military and go into a warzone runs counter to all that.

That's why I think it would be a big problem for them, to justify it. Sure, the Republicans control the government now, and may very well still control it next year, and if so, should they decide to reinstate the draft, there's little anyone could do to stop them. But we could make them pay for it.

Crucify them for sending "our daughters" off to be killed, or sue them for gender discrimination and refusing to allow women to serve their country alongside their brothers. Either way, the conservatives lose the argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. yes, draft women also
the draft should touch the widest possible cross section of american society.

really, i did not find that being drafted was overly traumatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. I'm not okay with the draft, but if it happens
Women are still overwhelmingly the primary childcare givers. I'm not okay with any draft, but I would okay with including women in the draft as long as there are exemptions for primary caregivers of children/sick/elderly, both men and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. No - give the men "opportunity" to become the primary care givers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. That sort of speaks to my point.
Why is it that women are more than likely to be the primary caregivers in our society? I think there are a lot of reasons based in the inherent sexism in our society; the idea that women are just naturally better at it, or are more likely to want to do it. Regardless of the reason, it is the way it is, and it cannot be ignored when considering whether to include women in the draft. Notice I also included men in the exemption. More and more men are, although the trend is still overwhelmingly women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
playahata1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. If the draft is indeed reinstated,
I predict an increase in the number of women trying to get pregnant to avoid mandatory service. Behold the next generation of BABY BOOMERS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. If I am not mistaken...
The potential draftee pool is made up of male U.S. residents between the ages of 18 and 25.

The first order of business would be to conduct a national draft lottery. The lottery would determine the order in which eligible men (or women, apparently) would be drafted. The government would start with all eligible men and women who turn 20 in the year of the draft.

If more troops were needed after processing all eligible 20-year-old men, the SSS would hold another lottery for 21-year-olds. They would then proceed to 22-year-olds, then 23-year-olds, then 24 year-olds, then 25-year olds. Finally, if more troops were needed, they would proceed to 19-year-olds, then 18-year-olds. In the event that the military still needed troops, the president and congress would have to extend the draft age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlewis Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Selective Service

Yes, as far as I remember, only males are required to sign up for Selective Service. When there is no draft, the point is moot, so no one would bother to address the issue. But if the draft is reinstated, it becomes a clear case of gender discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
26. The draft for any sex goes against feminist princeples imho
forcing women (or men) to do something they do not want to do with their bodies.Also oppressing others and domination goes against feminism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
27. Yes !
If I was 18 and they started the draft as a woman
I would insit that we women go too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kcwayne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Yes, and the Bush Twins should enlist
and then volunteer for service in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_ Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'm against the draft based on principle.
The only exception would be if there was an (highly unlikely), invasion threat of the U.S. by another country.

That said; any and all able bodied persons regardless of gender (or more importantly 'economic status'), should be eligible. Draft boards would have to be closely monitored so that the privileged few and "connected" don't get a free pass. Likewise, there would have to be a civilian review board that had oversight on duty assignments so that there would be no preferential treatment with regards to being place in harms way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
31. Gotta' fix the assault problem first
Women in the armed forces are being sexually assaulted by their fellow troops. I imagine drafted men would be even more prone than the current volunteers to the anger that tends to fuel sexual assault. Aside from my general objections to the draft, sending women into these sexual war zones (not to mention their later exposure to the actual enemy) to fend for themselves is cruel and inhuman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That's a good point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlewis Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. I agree completely

This is another way that insisting that the draft include women could cripple the proposal. I feel the draft must be stopped, and would make any argument to doom it.

"Congressman So-and-so voted to send our daughters to be raped and killed in a foreign country." What politician would want to be on the receiving end of that statement, since "protecting our way of life" (read, traditional gender roles) is such a hot topic for conservatives?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. Sending men to be killed for no reason is also cruel and inhuman. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
35. Under ERA--- YES!!!
I fully believe that we should be treated equally under the law. It is unfair for men to be the only ones to be forced to serve in the military if we have a draft. If I object to the possibility of being forced into childbirth because of my sex, I am not inclined to think it fair to impose killing and running the risk of being killed based on gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. Yes, it will further equal rights
Men and women need to be equal under the law in all ways to further eliminating sexism from our society.
I do think though that the rules of the draft should prevent both parents from being drafted for people with children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Habibi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
42. Yes. The draft should include women.
Even more people to work against it, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
47. not until women make up half the governments worldwide
and have the opportunity to prevent senseless carnage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
48. Yes
but it probably won't for the first round. The military has registrations from young men, not women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prodigal_green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
49. Yes, of course it should
Except for the fact that there shouldn't be a draft.

Question: if they draft a woman and she gets pregnant and subsequently gets killed in combat, does the president get charged with two counts of murder? Does the body count go up by two? </sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmags Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
50. I don't see why we don't include children in it either.
Those brats need to grow up sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
51. Wasn't women's liberation a theme during the Afghanistan invasion?
If this is the case, we should most certainly draft women. We can train them to be especially fierce, bloodthirsty and skilled, then place them in all-female "Death Femmes" battalions. Arm them to the teeth and have them mericilessly execute all of the fundamentalist mullahs. Wouldn't that be cool? Hell, we could create internal security battalions and have them do the same to the Christian fundamentalists here! Oh, even cooler, we could draft all the rich corporate fucks and put them in special "Cannon Fodder" battalions as part of "Operation Human Shield". See, I'm full of good ideas. Screw Kerry. Elect me President-- I'll shape things up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vetwife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Any vets on here? This is a mess in more ways than one !
# 1..They are going to reinstate the draft. They wouldn't have to but now with MOnkeyboy in there, staying the course, they will have to ! # 2..I head up a vets org. and talk to vets all the time including my husband and I tell you something. This will be a mess like no other and here is why. Women will be drafted but I am not sure for combat duty because men do not want them in the field with them. Every vet I have ever talked to says they just can't trust a woman's strength to pull them out of a bad situation. There are things that women just can't do in a combat firefight with bodies dropping everywhere. Like carrying 200 plus lb men on their back and if the men are put in that position, the women will be at risk for rape, sodomy and all kinds of things that is wide open in a situation like that. I am for equal rights, but......the men especially men who want to fight or have to fight just don't want to change their way of thinking. Don't kid yourself. Some of those women over there are facing danger but they are not on the front lines. They simply are not made the way men are physically. A jungle or desert does not accomodate women left out in the open for long periods of time with men in combat. Another thing women and men at home are not comfortable with their loves being so far away in a bonding situation. It is truly a mess ! Now I have seen some of those jealousy problems and understandlby so, but you are talking about tens of thousands of men and women not hundreds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC