Should Women Be Required to Register for the Draft?

[Dawguard]

Personally I would be for allowing them to serve in combat positions. Since they are obviously capable, proven from history, it would create an equal field when it comes to promotion, pay, etc. But there is a difference between allowing them to, and forcing them to.

 

[Hurkyl]

If we don't recognize differences then we become blind to reality.
...
This isn't discrimination, its common sense.
...
Discrmination!

You finally got it right at the last word. Discrimination is the act of perceiving differences, of distinguishing between different things. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Some discrimination is fair. Some is unfair. Some is just. Some is unjust. Some is accurate. Some is imagined. But it's all still discrimination.

 

[Hurkyl]

There are no perks, there is only a penalty if we don't. If men register and women don't we both get the same opportunity. Same opportunity, doesn't that sound like equality?

No, they don't get the same opportunity. Men have the opportunity to be drafted, and women don't. Nobody said it was a good opportunity. Honestrosewater hasn't brought this issue up because she wants to get into the military -- she brought it up because her gender gives her an advantage she doesn't think is deserved.

If it helps, think of it as if a man was complaining that women can't get drafted -- but where we know for certain that he isn't just jealous or self-serving.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think all the argument about what the army can and can't do with women soldiers is beyond the point. The draft doesn't say the draftee must go into combat; in the Korean war only 10% of the men inducted into the army served in a combat zone.

It just stands to reason that every behind-the-front job a woman can do releases a man for combat, and that's as good a reason for the army to draft women as any. The refusal to draft women is just a sop to some segment of the electorate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can make the case that women should be allowed to enter combat situations, but that is separate from the question of whether women should be drafted. You say you want equality, but equality does not mean identical. Women can join, women can do pretty damn much anything they want, so other then complaining they can't join a direct combat unit I really don't see why you say it's discrimination. As cyrusabdollahi said, there are no benefits of regeristing, we get nothing out of it. There are no perks, there is only a penalty if we don't. If men register and women don't we both get the same opportunity. Same opportunity, doesn't that sound like equality?

Equality isn't just about opportunity it's also about requirements.
An interesting parallel. I read recently about a politician in Europe who was trying to institute a tax to help pay for shelters and aid for battered and abused women. The kicker being that she wanted only men to be required to pay the tax because men ofcourse are the abusers so they should be the ones paying. Does that sound like equality to you? It has nothing to do with equal opportunities, it's just an extra requirment for men that women don't have to worry about.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

 

[honestrosewater]

Thanks for the info, BobG and Bystander.

I'm not even talking about being drafted, just being put on the list of potential draftees. One thing at a time. I think it's unjustified discrimination, but I'm still not sure whether it's worth correcting. I can think of better things to spend the money on, so if there would be no consequence other than us actually being treated equally, I'd rather just let it go for now and work on something else. I think I'll just write some people and see if I can get them to let me register.

I'd like to know why some of you cast this as complaining. According to our laws, equal treatment is something that I deserve. Since when is asking for something that you deserve complaining? I can't imagine it's the manner in which I'm asking, so is it the subject matter?

Maybe allowing but not requiring women to register is the best compromise.? It would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Maybe allowing but not requiring women to register is the best compromise.? It would at least be a step in the right direction.

Probably achievable --- "best" would be to recognize that tactical doctrine no longer requires "cannon fodder" conscription. There's still the "unborn noncombatant" question that needs to be spelled out in contracts between women and the uniformed services, be it voluntary enlistment or conscription; don't know what form, or terms, such clauses would take or contain, and I certainly wouldn't wanta be in the personnel office that has to clarify such questions, run ideas past the AG, present them to congress or testify for test cases before SCOTUS.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd like to know why some of you cast this as complaining.

Because you are (or at least, nearly are)! Like "discrimination", "complaining" isn't an inherently bad thing.

Main Entry: com·plain
...
1 : to express grief, pain, or discontent
2 : to make a formal accusation or charge

 

[Dawguard]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

In a nutshell, yes. Now, before you start screaming misogynist at me, let me tell you I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong. You might say we want compelte equality, and sure in theory it isn't fair to only draft men. Sure women should be included in a draft if we want absolute equality. Unfortunatly we live in a world where there are two different sexes with different bodies and minds. It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat. I wonder if the women here saying they should be able to be drafted have ever known what real combat is. It can never be described in words, and to just glibly say that well, we need equality so we should force women into that role is simply ludicrous when viewed in real life.
Now, as for the arguments that we should draft women into noncombat role, that is rather absurd. A lot of those jobs are now being handled by outside contracters, and if we ever intered into a war that required a draft, then these jobs would be of tremendous commercial value. It would be far better to outsource them to American citizen workers in an effort to keep a stable economy. Sure women can take the job, but nobody would be drafted into it.

Discrimination is the act of perceiving differences, of distinguishing between different things. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Some discrimination is fair. Some is unfair. Some is just. Some is unjust. Some is accurate. Some is imagined. But it's all still discrimination.

Alright, I'll give you that. The problem is that discrimination has been so vilified that by simply using the word I would effectivly shoot my argument in the foot. Discrimination is automaticly associated with unfairness, so I skirted around the use of it.

 

[honestrosewater]

Because you are (or at least, nearly are)! Like "discrimination", "complaining" isn't an inherently bad thing.

Touché. I hadn't even noticed that you said complaining. I might have picked up a negative tone from other posts and assumed they were also using complaining in a negative way. (Hm, but it does look like you might have meant it in a negative way. You didn't?)

 

[vanesch]

A man physically able, aged 18-25 must register with the SS no matter what.

 

[vanesch]

My opinion is that women have fought long and hard for equality, and that means equality, not just picking and choosing the things that sound good and leaving out the bad. So long as registering for the selective service is required for men, it should be required for women. If the idea of sending women into battle bothers some people, then maybe it will give them reason to give another thought to whether the battle is really the only solution to the problem at hand. I don't think it's any less appalling to send men into battle for anything other than the most desperate situations where no other solution is available.

:!) Now that's something of an intelligent statement

I'm against drafting, but if it's done, I don't see why not EVERYBODY should be involved, including elderly people, children, women, cats, tunafish and ducks. I'd only make an exception for ants.

If the situation is such, that the collectivity to which we belong, decides that we should sacrifice our lives, then I don't see why some should, and others shouldn't be on the lottery. It is only acceptable if NOT going on war, and risking your life, will make the OVERALL situation for the collectivity so terrible, that it's worth the bet, for each individual. Then it is a collective decision that *everybody* risks his/her life, with about the same probability of dying or being disabled.
But I don't see why 80% of society should safely decide that 20% should go and risk their bones for their little confort, without taking any risk themselves.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, unt ze gestapo vil come unt take us to war!

 

[daveb]

It is discrimination for one simple reason. A man has additional legal requirements that a woman doesn't, and these requirements are solely based on sex alone. If a man who is required to register doesn't, then I'm pretty sure he can't obtain higher education financial aid. There are probably other legal or financial ramifications as well. However, since there is no draft, and registering for the draft would probably not be construed as an undue burden on males, it's a mostly irrelevant form of discrimination, so is relatively harmless. If a draft were to be instituted, then it's a grave form of discrimination, since it violates equal protection (a man might possibly be forcibly prevented from improving his quality of life).

 

[Grogs]

I think men and women should be treated equally. By that, I mean that neither should have to register for SS. I think it's a dinosaur that has outlived its usefulness, and frankly, isn't compatible with a democratic society. Since that option isn't really on the table, I guess I'd go with 'allowed, but not required.'

 

[Dawguard]

It is discrimination for one simple reason. A man has additional legal requirements that a woman doesn't, and these requirements are solely based on sex alone.

Hmm...the same argument again and again, with the same simple reasoning. Need I quote my entire last post, or can't you get past words? You want unilateral equality, give women balls so they can feel the pain of being kicked in the groin, and give men wombs so they can feel the pain of childbirth. Genetically engineer an asexual species and you can have pure equality.
Now, I'm not saying that either men or women are better then the other. Perhaps I haven't been explaining it well, or perhaps you can't get past simple statements. This type of "bumber sticker" arguments get us nowhere, and is akin to children saying, 'I'm right': 'no I'm right'! Now, I've given you my reasons why I think that it isn't unfair, so please either refute them or give a new argument, don't just parrot what other people have said here.

 

[mattmns]

That makes for good bumber sticker arguments, but we need to deal with larger issues and more facts. Tell me why they should be required. I have given you my opinion why they shouldn't be. If you respectfully dissagree, please state why.

Also, I'm not saying I don't agree with it for the same reasons as the DoD. Whether they think it is right or wrong is irrelevant to its state as such.

Sorry I was not directing my comment toward you (although it does look that way, I had just not seen your post).

To elaborate on my argument: Women are allowed to serve now, so I must assume that they can do the job just as well as men, if they cannot, then they should not be allowed to serve. So since they can do the job just as well as men, they should be required just as men are.

 

[Dawguard]

I'm against drafting, but if it's done, I don't see why not EVERYBODY should be involved, including elderly people, children, women, cats, tunafish and ducks. I'd only make an exception for ants.

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages. Need I point out how stupid that is? I don't think so. Think about it in real life, please! All you have done so far is through ideas and words together. Fine, in theory, but theories are worth jack crap unless they are practicly implentable.

 

[Dawguard]

To elaborate on my argument: Women are allowed to serve now, so I must assume that they can do the job just as well as men, if they cannot, then they should not be allowed to serve. So since they can do the job just as well as men, they should be required just as men are.

Ah, I've admitted that women can do the job just as well. In fact, I think they should be allowed to be in direct combat roles. However, just becuase some women can doesn't mean it's practical to draft any women. I wonder, what is the closest you have come to the military? How well do you know war? Let me tell you, in a battle it is foolish to expect the average women of the street to act the same as a man. Don't call this misogyny, call it common sense. I know it really isn't a good judge of what real combat is like, but watch movies like We Were Soldiers, or Saving Private Ryan. Hell, watch any war movie, most do an OK job. Then look at your daughter, your wife or your sister. Now tell me you think she should be forced into a situation like that. Just becuase on paper it sounds like equality? That reason is as flimsly as a paper boat trying to cross the Atlantic with a full load of immigrants. Why is the idea of equality a good enough reason to force women into the infrantry?

 

[Hurkyl]

Don't call this misogyny, call it common sense. I know it really isn't a good judge of what real combat is like, but watch movies like We Were Soldiers, or Saving Private Ryan. Hell, watch any war movie, most do an OK job. Then look at your daughter, your wife or your sister. Now tell me you think she should be forced into a situation like that.

This sounds more like an emotional reaction than "common sense". I also imagine that many (most?) people would find the notion that their son, husband, or brother be forced into war to be equally repugnant, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

P.S. common sense is often wrong, and is certainly not agreed upon by all -- if your only argument is that it's "common sense", then you don't have an argument.

 

[honestrosewater]

It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat.

By what argument?

I wonder if the women here saying they should be able to be drafted have ever known what real combat is. It can never be described in words, and to just glibly say that well, we need equality so we should force women into that role is simply ludicrous when viewed in real life.

First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?), and I don't think either of us have been glib. You, however, are being glib, in my opinion, in accusing us of being glib. I am taking this very seriously, and I find your attitude disrespectful.

Second, it is not required of men that they "know what real combat is", so I don't see how that is relevant.

Whether you look at service as a privilege or a burden, what in the law says that it shouldn't belong to women just as much as it does to men?

You can keep your pity if that's your motivation here.

 

[Dawguard]

This sounds more like an emotional reaction than "common sense". I also imagine that many (most?) people would find the notion that their son, husband, or brother be forced into war to be equally repugnant, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

Emotional, unintended and true, but that doesn't negate its truth. If you want a unemotional argument, watch them. Then forget about your family, and consider any women you know actually doing it. I wasn't trying to ellicit the idea of repugnace, simply reality. Do you honestly think the average women could fight in a battle to the equal skill of men? My question wasn't for emotion, but to judge their skills. Now, just because I say this I fear that you will call it discrimination, misogyny and write if off as untrue. That is because I think that you think about everything in ideas and ideals. Look beyond that, and try to think about the results of this draft. Don't tell me it should happen, tell me what would happen if it happened. That is the only judge of whether it's right or wrong.

P.S. common sense is often wrong, and is certainly not agreed upon by all -- if your only argument is that it's "common sense", then you don't have an argument.

No, it isn't common sense, its recognizing reality. Common sense is actually your argument, using simple one-two logic. I'm not advocating common sense, I'm advocating practical reason.

 

[Dawguard]

By what argument?

Simply by not looking at ideas, but by looking at reality. It isn't arrogance to recognize that men are better fighters. One, their temperments are better suited to destruction, and two their bodies are better suited to it. You cannot deny this, it is proven by phsycology and, well, I don't even need to point out the proof for the second reason.

First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?), and I don't think either of us have been glib. You, however, are being glib, in my opinion, in accusing us of being glib. I am taking this very seriously, and I find your attitude disrespectful.

I'm sorry to sound disrespectful, it wasn't my intent. What I meant by glibly is that people here seem to just say, "men have to, women should have to". That's extremely simplistic reasoning, and is very is to simply spew out. That is glib, and I don't know how much you've looked into this. Once again, I sorry if it sounded disrespecful.

Second, it is not required of men that they "know what real combat is", so I don't see how that is relevant.

I didn't say they needed to know what real combat was before joining or being drafted. What I said was that you should understand real combat before saying women should be forced into it. Surely this is logical?

Whether you look at service as a privilege or a burden, what in the law says that it shouldn't belong to women just as much as it does to men?

Well, in law it is the Selective Service Act that is saying it. And, in my opinion, should and will continue to say it.

You can keep your pity if that's your motivation here.

Thank you, I will. It is not my only motivation. My promary motivations are two: to persuade you of the truth as I see it, and out of fear.

 

[pattylou]

...their bodies are better suited to it. You cannot deny this, it is proven by phsycology and, well, I don't even need to point out the proof for the second reason.

I have no idea what the second reason is. I'm scratching my head and wondering ... Periods? Pregnancy? Sex appeal? ?? Maybe I misunderstand the end of the quote above.

But anyway, the reason I decided to post is because your overall reasoning is wrong.

Any trait is exhibited in a population, along a spectrum. Destructive tendencies vary from one person to the next. Whereas destructive tendencies may or may not *tend* to correlate with one gender or another, there will be overlap between the two genders. In other words, some women will be more destructive than some men, and some men will be more destructive than some women.

The same holds for any trait, whether it is strength, intelligence, stealth, emotionality, aggressiveness, etc. In short, some women are better suited to the armed services than some men, and vice versa.

It is actually fine to say that there is a bar that must be attained to enter the service, and that bar may well favor one gender or the other. In other words, you *can* say that a person has to have a certain psychological disposition in order to serve, or a certain endurance or strength or targetting capability with a rifle. But to say that men can serve and women can't, and to put that under the argument that men are better suited to it, is overly simplistic.

Who would you rather have at your side? A crybaby weak male with allergies and esteem issues, or a strong unemotional woman whose a dead shot on an enemy target? Both types of people exist.

 

[Evo]

Ok, I have to jump in here. I don't think "American women" as a whole are emotionally suited for combat. It is how they are raised. It doesn't mean that women as a whole can't be effective in combat, there have been societies where it was accepted that women be combat able.

Yes there are some physical drawbacks that some women have, I have terrible cramps that can completely disable me for 2-3 days at a time. My blood pressure drops and I turn white and even standing is difficult.

Women don't normally have the upper body strength that men do.

I think most importantly it would take a whole new mindset to successfully draft women into combat and have them make it through boot camp, even less survive on the battlefield. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, I'm saying overall.

 

[Bystander]

By what argument?
First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?)... (snip)

Nerp.

(snip)Do you honestly think the average women could fight in a battle to the equal skill of men? (snip)

Hand to hand? No. Properly trained, equipped, and commanded? The object at the individual level in warfare is to "reach out and touch somebody" without them even knowing anyone is within range. The opponent who has just been whacked by a Browning M2 from an Abrams, or a chaingun from a Bradley isn't going to be checking the holes for lipstick, eyeliner, or blusher the girls spilled on the ammunition.

Problems? Accidental war crime, as I've mentioned in the event it becomes a matter of record that a pregnant female was involved in hostile action, regardless of whether it was known at the time; male troops are inclined to go overboard in situations such as whatsherface's ambush and non-Geneva and Hague compliant POW status (creates a discipline and maneuver control problem plus the impromptu reprisals prevent trials of the opposition for war crimes); chauvinism coloring command decisions (stay and fight it out, or withdraw --- which troops and units get left holding the bag), good way to get a lot of people hurt.

Advantages? Female troops are probably better disciplined as a group (follow orders, less inclined to "John Wayne" their way through a "situation"); personal opinion, lifetime of impressions, not intended personally or pejoratively, females can be maddeningly obsessive-compulsive about detail at times, and this can do wonders for survival in combat situations.

Bottom line? Tactical doctrine is never in phase with training, equipment, manpower pool, global strategy, or command experience and conditioned responses to situations. We've got a "stand-off" approach, yet arm the troops with a "human-wave" personal weapon, the M-16, and send them house-to-house against AK-47s --- not bright --- not bright at all. DoD wises up and moves back to an 8mm or .30 cal for individual weapons (keep the bad guys at a range where the AK is ineffective), and the advantages can outweigh the problems if SCOTUS and congress can come to grips with international law, right-to-lifers, abortion rights types, "don't ask, don't tell" policies, and the obligations of contract law

 

[Dawguard]

I have no idea what the second reason is. I'm scratching my head and wondering ... Periods? Pregnancy? Sex appeal? ?? Maybe I misunderstand the end of the quote above.

All of the above, plus less body mass in upper body muscle.

Any trait is exhibited in a population, along a spectrum. Destructive tendencies vary from one person to the next. Whereas destructive tendencies may or may not *tend* to correlate with one gender or another, there will be overlap between the two genders. In other words, some women will be more destructive than some men, and some men will be more destructive than some women. The same holds for any trait, whether it is strength, intelligence, stealth, emotionality, aggressiveness, etc. In short, some women are better suited to the armed services than some men, and vice versa.

I agree, but I already said that I'm not looking at possibilites, I'm looking at stastical averages. To say there is no average difference is simply being blind to obvious facts.

But to say that men can serve and women can't, and to put that under the argument that men are better suited to it, is overly simplistic.

I never said they can't, in fact I've said twice, now thrice, that they can. My contention is forcing them to.

Who would you rather have at your side? A crybaby weak male with allergies and esteem issues, or a strong unemotional woman whose a dead shot on an enemy target? Both types of people exist.

Of course, but once again I point out statistical averages. I'm not making blanket statements nor oversimplifying things by saying that no woman is capable. Reiteration, stastical averages!

Ok, I have to jump in here. I don't think "American women" as a whole are emotionally suited for combat. It is how they are raised. It doesn't mean that women as a whole can't be effective in combat, there have been societies where it was accepted that women be combat able.

Yes there are some physical drawbacks that some women have, I have terrible cramps that can completely disable me for 2-3 days at a time. My blood pressure drops and I turn white and even standing is difficult.

Women don't normally have the upper body strength that men do.

I think most importantly it would take a whole new mindset to successfully draft women into combat and have them make it through boot camp, even less survive on the battlefield. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, I'm saying overall.

Oh, thank you Evo! :!) :!) :!) A voice of true reason!

 

[Hurkyl]

No, it isn't common sense, its recognizing reality. Common sense is actually your argument, using simple one-two logic. I'm not advocating common sense, I'm advocating practical reason.

If you want to recognize reality, then maybe you should review the thread and look at just who has been using the term, and how it's been used.

If you want a unemotional argument, watch them. Then forget about your family, and consider any women you know actually doing it. I wasn't trying to ellicit the idea of repugnace, simply reality.

That's not an argument. And I can't begin to imagine how you can use the term "unemotional" when you are suggesting to someone that they try to visualize people they know in the setting of an incredibly emotionally charged film.


If you were actually trying to argue that the average woman was so inferior to the average man as to justify not drafting them, that would be one thing. But when you constantly make these ridiculous arguments that appeal to "common sense", "reality", and emotion, it gives me good reason to think that you really aren't arguing from any sort of rational position.

That argument that you aren't making is insufficient anyways. pattylou has outlined one of the major problems: that decisions are being made not based upon the qualities that matter, but based upon a (alledgedly) statistically correlated quality.

The other major problem is that it leads to the conclusion "It's efficient to exclude women from the draft". More work has to be done to get all the way to "it's just to exclude women from the draft".

Incidentally, this is exactly the form of one of the traditional forms of "bad" discrimination. If I were to argue:

"We shouldn't give Hispanics high school educations because they have the highest dropout rate amongst all ethnicities"¹

I think you could easily see the injustice. What you need to do is explain why the point you are arguing is not a similar form of injustice.


1: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060302/a_hispanics02.art.htm

 

[honestrosewater]

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages.

Sorry, I'm kind of behind the discussion here; I'll try to catch up overnight. I just wanted to point out that this isn't true. One is gender-based discrimination, the other is age-based discrimination. One might be justified while the other is not; the arguments might be different.

 

[Dawguard]

That's not an argument. And I can't begin to imagine how you can use the term "unemotional" when you are suggesting to someone that they try to visualize people they know in the setting of an incredibly emotionally charged film.

All of war is emotionally charged, you can't consider war without emotions being there. If you do then it isn't war, it is some vague, unreal concept that has yet to exist in real life.

If you were actually trying to argue that the average woman was so inferior to the average man as to justify not drafting them, that would be one thing. But when you constantly make these ridiculous arguments that appeal to "common sense", "reality", and emotion, it gives me good reason to think that you really aren't arguing from any sort of rational position.

Not inferior, just not as capable to fight in war as men. What rational do you want? Do you want me to argue from sheer words and ideas instead of reality? Fine, have it your way.
You cannot deny that both the psycology and physiology of men and women are different. Thus, logically, it follows that there are things that men and women are naturally inclined too, or have natural aptitude. Once again, logicaly, since war involves extreme physical endurence and the willingness to destroy life, it follows that men, not women, are naturally suited for war.
There, logical enough?

That argument that you aren't making is insufficient anyways. pattylou has outlined one of the major problems: that decisions are being made not based upon the qualities that matter, but based upon a (alledgedly) statistically correlated quality.

You needn't say alledgedly, you know as well as I that it is true. What qualities matter, expect the ability to perform all the functions of war. As outlined above, I agree with Evo that such things run contrary to women's upbringing and body.

The other major problem is that it leads to the conclusion "It's efficient to exclude women from the draft". More work has to be done to get all the way to "it's just to exclude women from the draft".

Incidentally, this is exactly the form of one of the traditional forms of "bad" discrimination. If I were to argue:

"We shouldn't give Hispanics high school educations because they have the highest dropout rate amongst all ethnicities"¹

I think you could easily see the injustice. What you need to do is explain why the point you are arguing is not a similar form of injustice.

Don't put words in my mouth, and don't draw conclusions from what I said that aren't even related. You can't pull a cheap trick like this just to make me look like a racist. It is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen since the two situations are different. You put words in my mouth, and I refuse to allow that.

As for why it's fair and just not to draft women, I outlined the reasons both in this post and previously. I stated why I think women aren't suited to war and therefore shouldn't be drafted. You have issues with that, tell me. So far all you have done is equate it with racism and unfair discrimination.

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted. That is my main point, and so far it has yet to be addressed.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

In a nutshell, yes. Now, before you start screaming misogynist at me, let me tell you I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong. You might say we want compelte equality, and sure in theory it isn't fair to only draft men. Sure women should be included in a draft if we want absolute equality. Unfortunatly we live in a world where there are two different sexes with different bodies and minds. It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat.

True. And along the same lines, I suggest that only the rich be taxed, because they are statistically more capable of surviving with say, 75% of their income docked. Of course, the poor should not be denied the opportunity to pay taxes, but it shouldn't be mandatory for them.

 

[honestrosewater]

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted. That is my main point, and so far it has yet to be addressed.

Well, just so this is perfectly clear, once again, no one who registers with the SS ever needs to be drafted. DoD even claims that it wouldn't draft women -- that is what they put forward as their main justification for this gender-based discrimination: they probably wouldn't need women in a future draft (because women are not allowed to fill the positions that the draftees would likely be filling). I don't think that's a good enough reason -- heck, I'm not even sure it's true anymore -- and they already have an Alternative Service Program for conscientious objectors in which they could place anyone else who they thought wasn't fit for the Armed Services -- or just don't draft them, for the umpteenth time.

Anywho, I am not suggesting that the military draft people who aren't fit to serve. Unless you change some of our fundamental laws, the government needs to meet certain requirements if it wants to discriminate based on gender. I don't think it has met those requirements in this case. Discriminate based on fitness to serve, and I will stop complaining. Being a woman does not make one unfit for service, and saving money isn't a good enough reason to break the law or abandon our principles. If some women want to receive special treatment because they are women, then they need to change the law. As things stand now, they all deserve equal treatment.

I grew up being told that men and women were equal as citizens, so I have no reason to expect special treatment. (And personally, I don't want special treatment.) But if some women were given some reason to expect special treatment, perhaps it would be fairer to exclude them from the requirement. What if you allowed women to register starting ASAP but only started requiring women to register (at the age of 18) in, say, 18 years? That way, the women that would be required to register will have been born and raised with that expectation just as men are currently born and raised with that expectation.

 

[vanesch]

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages. Need I point out how stupid that is? I don't think so.

Well, the equality that matters to me here, and the only one that really counts, is this: why should society decide that MY CHANCES TO GET KILLED OR DISABLED must become rather high, to go and solve a problem that benefits essentially OTHERS, while a big chunk of society's chances to get killed or disabled aren't altered (or even slightly improved because of my sacrifice) ?
This is no minor "discrimination". I find it a MAJOR discrimination towards young, healthy males that society decides that their probability to get killed or disables is going to be multiplied by 1000 or so. That's something else than the potential right to be part of the football team or not. We're talking about death and injury here.
So my argument was, that IF society is in such a deep poop that it must require such sacrifices from its members, then THIS BURDEN MUST BE CARRIED EQUALLY BY ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS. If not, I consider this a serious injustice that some must carry this burden (young healthy males) and others go around happily. This, in my book, is A SERIOUS DISCRIMINATION of one of my most valued rights: the right to live.

Now, it might be impractical, for several reasons, to send grandma to the battlefield. All right. But then, to make the injustice go away, EVERYBODY should participate in a draft, those that are fit should go to the battlefield, and those that aren't, for any particular reason, practically fit to do so, should be EXECUTED OR DISMEMBERED IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS as those that suffer those sorts on the battlefield. In that way, the burden is carried equally by all members of society (and those members might then - as moonbear suggested - think twice before deciding that that sacrifice is indeed the one that is required).

 

[daveb]

Hmm...the same argument again and again, with the same simple reasoning. Need I quote my entire last post, or can't you get past words? You want unilateral equality, give women balls so they can feel the pain of being kicked in the groin, and give men wombs so they can feel the pain of childbirth. Genetically engineer an asexual species and you can have pure equality.
Now, I'm not saying that either men or women are better then the other. Perhaps I haven't been explaining it well, or perhaps you can't get past simple statements. This type of "bumber sticker" arguments get us nowhere, and is akin to children saying, 'I'm right': 'no I'm right'! Now, I've given you my reasons why I think that it isn't unfair, so please either refute them or give a new argument, don't just parrot what other people have said here.

Ah, you should have been a journalist. If you had continued reading the entire post, instead of just choosing a portion of the post to focus upon, you would have realized that I never stated I wanted unilateral equality, and claiming I do is a strawman argument (and you must logically claim I do want it - otherwise why quote me?). That's impossible, because men and women are different in many ways. I merely stated that "it" was discrimination. Perhaps I should not have said "it" but instead said "required registration", but since the OP was about required registration (and not the drafting of men over women), I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that people would know to what I was referring. I further went on to point out that men have legal ramifications for not registering, which I do not believe was ever pointed out before that. Therefore, I did not "parrot" other posts. I also never stated that the registration requirement in itself was unfair. Yes, I did state that if a draft were to be instituted, it was grave discrimination (implying it was unfair). As for that opinion, it was based upon the reasoning (previously mentioned) that it violated equal protection. However, I pointed out differently how it violates equal protection.

As for your statements that men are statistically better at combat than women, can you provide references for these statistics?