Seeing as we are now supposivly facing the threat of the reinstiting of the draft because of a shortage of troops, i would be all for having women register for the military just like men do but i think they should be under different rules in the way of registering age. Maybe starting at age 20 to 26. Women are not as strong as men (sorry ladies...no offense!) and they would need to wait to register to make themselves stronger.

Also, they should have units of their own to quell sexual harassement suits.

First, if women were required to register for Selective Service and the draft were reinstated, one big argument that would surface for couples is which parent would be allowed to stay home and take care of the kid(s). I don't see how the military could take both parents and require grandparents, other relatives, or foster families to raise them and risk having both parents killed or injured in times of combat.

While I believe that there are some women who could do as decent a job as a man on the battlefield, I am not convinced that women should be required to take on the same jobs as their male counterparts in combat situations.

I am against women registering for Selective Service. If they choose to join the military on their own and try taking the rigorous training and tests that qualify them as Rangers, Seals, Spec Ops or whatever, that is their choice.

But I am also against the draft for men, unless our country's borders are breached by hostile forces. In that case, I agree with the poster(s) who said that there would not be a shortage of volunteers.

I'm not sure if anything would change in the event of draft of both genders, but as it stands right now, since my wife and I are both military, we are required to have a 'family care plan'. This is basically a guardianship packet (wills, POA, etc..) in the event we both got deployed. My wife is now in Iraq, as you know, and the chances aren't great, but I could be deployed also.
When I was in Iraq for Desert Storm, I had a buddy whose wife was in our same division, at essentially the same location during the build up to combat. They had kids who were being kept by family.
Since a draft would bring this problem up on a much larger scale, I have to believe that there would be some type of safeguard built in to keep from breaking up a huge number of families.

I think how it would go for couples with kids and both are called up, one would be put on combat while the other is put on the reservist list, then when that one comes home, the other goes.

I think women should be required. That way, when we are all hopping the border, when can have some women by our sides also!

Ok...that was a bad joke. But I have a comment about 2 things Rev Del Fuego has said.



I didn't give thought to this when I voted for the Amendment first, but this is a pretty valid point. We can assume equality - atleast superficially - in the good ole' US of A, but how can we assume equal treatment for both men and women POWs?

I'm not sure how to work this situation out, but it is definitely something that should be talked about before emplying the draft for both sexes.



I have to admit, this is true. I know some people whose parents paid a pretty penny for them to escape the Draft during Vietnam.

Edited to say: A new thread about whether a required draft is right or wrong is HERE

“If I or my daughters were forced into military duty to keep the system from being sexist, then at the very least I want a constitutional guarantee of equality in all other aspects of our lives.” I find this post ironic because it does not appear that the person posting this realizes that a constitutional guarantee of equality MANDATES that women register, participate in a draft, and participate in training and military service, as well as serve in front line combat roles if deemed fit.

There already exists a constitutional requirement that all persons in the United States receive equal protection under the law (the 14th amendment). This is one of the foundations of much of the civil rights legislation, including laws and court rulings that provide “equal rights” for women. (See http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/...ights_act.html) Unfortunately, the United States government has not taken the necessary step to require equality of responsibility for ALL based on this equal protection clause. Without equal responsibility there cannot be equal protection because holding one group to a high standard of responsibility based on gender means that this same group is not provided equal protection.

The U.S. government holding men to a different standard under law is not only sexist, it is discriminatory and unconstitutional. One common pattern I see on the part of women posting here is the wanton disregard for the well being of men illustrated by the posts that trivialize the impact of the blatant discrimination on the part of the U.S. government when it comes to selective service registration, draft, and combat service. I wonder at what age in a man’s life these women feel it is alright to begin discriminating against their fathers, brothers, sons, nephews, etc.

I believe that if men must register for and participate in a draft, under the Constitution, women must be held to the same standard. The military already has a system in place that can determine who is physically fit for and assigned to combat roles. In addition, there is a simple, non-discriminatory way to resolve the problem with two parents being assigned to combat at the same time. The first one called up goes. If both are called up at the same time, the one whose birthday occurs first (or last) in the calendar year, not the oldest, goes. The key thing to ensure equal protection is to leave gender out of the picture.

Many thanks to nebraska29 for notifying me of this link:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues...=ua_congressorg



This is where we get down to the nitty gritty. Do I want my 10-year-old daughter forced to report to Uncle Sam to take up arms when she turns 18? Hell no. Nor do I want my 27-year-old son compelled to become a soldier. I already have a 29-year-old son who is a sergeant in the Army National Guard stationed in Kuwait. He volunteered.

The only scenario I would consider worthy of the government using my children as cannon fodder would be if the enemy was gathering to actually invade our homeland. In that case I would volunteer and take up arms, too.

But no more of my children for Bush to use against bogus "imminent threats" in foreign lands, unless my children volunteer to go.

Not all people are cut out for the military, that I believe goes without saying. But why would it be so bad for those who aren't to serve in some other form of service.

I do believe this is a little premature, but why are our children any better than their parents or grandparents. Do we honestly belive that our great-grandparents were happy and excited that their sons were called up in the draft? I don't think so.

Are my sons serving today, sadly, no they are not. Their father did. I don't understand them, but it is their choice. Had they been drafted, I would have been horribly upset with them if they had tried to avoid it. I love my children with all my heart and to me they are very special, but in truth they are no more important than your children or anyone elses children.


Also, please tell your son who is serving, that this American appericates all of his sacrifices.

Indeed, it is when everyone's children are considered important enough to avoid fighting that wars will end. Your children are as important as my children.



Thank you. I have told him of the AD members and I will again.

I respect my son's service, and he knows it. He also knows that I do not respect his Commander-in-Chief for the unnecessary and costly pre-emptive war that has claimed the lives of 800+ Americans, not to mention untold numbers of Iraqi innocents, and ushered in a policy that we can start wars on whomever we please whenever we please based on shaky "evidence," our own arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction notwithstanding.

I have one daughter who shows great potential in areas other than making war. She is at her age a peacemaker on the playground, and her grades are top notch. She is all I've got left at home, and any sitting President had better have a damned good reason for requiring her participation in a war.



It didn't go without saying in the past. There is hope as long as people acknowledge this now. The problem comes when the Army says, Sorry Billy (or Suzy), we're out of positions for cooks. You'll have to be infantry instead.



Why indeed? Is this sentiment coming from the same (conservative) ideology that abhors socialism in the form of universal health coverage and yet would embrace a concept that is dear to the heart of the collectivist system?

The only difference is that a segment of the population will find a way out by virtue of being part of a privileged class--the sons and daughters of corporate heads. As long as there are wealthy people with clever attorneys, there will be eligible young Americans who will dodge the draft bullet or find cushy assignments guaranteed to be out of harm's way.

Personally, I do not agree with the draft on a constitutional basis (indentured servitude), and as a soldier (I do not want to have to "pick up the slack" for those who are there against their will). I do however feel that, as Selective Service registration is currently the law, it should be applied equally across the board. With equal rights and privileges come equal responsibility. Until Selective Service is ruled un-Constitutional, it should apply to both genders.

Not real sure what the two have to do with each other. One is asking others to take care of you and financial pick you up. The other is asking for each person to give something back. At least that is how I see.

As for universal health care. It's not all its cracked up to be. Knowing alot of people who have free health care, many choose to pay for insurance and go to doctors of their choice, with more timely appointments.

Isn't this a little off topic for this thread?

In the event that war is declared againsts us by all means should woman be drafted as well as college students and a (percentage of guardsman -woman by lottery). noone should be exempt from the draft ,except by age, metal or phyical disabilities. I see no difference of someone going to college or canada or even the guards to avoid combat. To be drafted for an Iraq type war ,I would not feel unamerican walking acrossed the canadian border at all. Woman are as capable in all areas of combat with the exception of hand to hand ,but even there many are if trained well.

Robert1, you will not be able to dodge the draft by going to Canada. From the same link I referenced:



And, in reference to lethaletha's question about the relevance of a draft and universal health care (accepting the one but not the other), I am merely stating that I see a real discrepancy in requiring (allegedly) all young people to serve whether it is their choice or not--that is, their lives--while there is such a strong reluctance to part with more money for the sake of seeing that the health care needs of everyone in our society, not just those who can afford it, are met.



Ain't choice grand when you can afford it? Those who are uninsured are glad when they get it at all.


I have a question, too. Since there is no real way of putting it delicately, what do women do on the field of combat when they are menstruating? Just bleed through their combat fatigues?

Goofed on the last post. Should have been this way.

Can one delete their own post?


Back to the subject matter. I AM one of the uninsured and I'm not asking you for help. The other is just asking you to give someback.

Do you presume to speak for all of the uninsured?

What is not paid by the uninsured in their visits to the emergency rooms and for hospital beds is charged to insurance companies, which pass on the costs by way of higher premiums to their subscribers. I worked at a Wal-Mart where the premiums were going up yearly for the associates. Many of my co-workers could not afford to pay the premiums and still pay the rent or for groceries. Anyone with an income who pays taxes essentially pays for the uninsured as it is, so why is the concept of universal health coverage so abhorrent if it can be instituted more efficiently, less expensively? But you're right, this is a digression.

So Josephine Gonzales is drafted to serve her country. The country that cannot (will not) help her inner city school financially, or help her attend college, the country that doesn't see the worth in providing health coverage for all its citizens, the country that wouldn't stop the exodus of American jobs to foreign countries so her dad or her mom would have gainful employment in manufacturing and not just some McJob that doesn't pay the bills. (Where is the job re-training the Prez talked about?)

But Josephine (or Joe) Gonzales will be required to answer the call and lay down her (or his) life for her country. A country that condemns welfare or social programs for ordinary people who are struggling, but that relaxes its pollution standards and provides all kinds of corporate welfare.

This is the problem I have with my country. There are always resources, money and people, to make war. But there is a hue and cry raised when some members of Congress suggest that some of these resources be used directly for the people instead of all for defense and corporate entitlements.

Just why should the young people defend a country that isn't interested in them or their families? At least, why should they be coerced? And especially when the country in question didn't and couldn't hurt us?

The troops aren't even being deployed right. The National Guard is supposed to defend OUR borders. Last time I checked, our borders did not extend to Iraq. Why aren't they part of our Homeland Security?

I am going to contact my Senators and State Representative to urge them to kill these bills. I do not want my daughter as part of the force a President uses to pick fights in the world. The WOT is not WWIII. And it doesn't compare to WWII.

A few thoughts have occurred to me on this topic.

First, while many posters allege that women are treated equally in the "Good ole USA," the reality is that the Equal Rights Amendment has never passed, and while laws require equal pay for equal work, it rarely happens outside of a union shop. Reports have come out annually for as long as I can remember showing that women earn 75 cents or so for every dollar a man earns. Yes, a man and a woman of the same rank, doing the same job in the military would likely earn the same pay; but that doesn't justify drafting them.

Second, when the draft was active, married fathers were exempt from the draft. (At least that is how my draft board explained it to me in 1965, when I reported the birth of my first child.) I suspect that mothers would likewise be classified as exempt.

Third, the language that is residing in the proposed bill PE cited left me with an interesting personal question...


There has been a lot of talk about, "Will the Bush Twins serve in the military?" I suspect that more than one Congressman has had the question cross their desks. So if pressure came from the White House to reinstate the draft, the might have felt obligated to write a draft of the legislation that would specifically provide no alternative for the Bush Twins. President Bush, faced with such a bill, would then have to put up or shut up. He would either have to sign the bill into law and leave his daughters subject to the draft, or veto the legislation and plead for Congress to pass a draft bill that somehow provided an exclusion for his daughters.

Good point, Curmudgeon. I doubt this bill will pass, but if it did, consider the language there. "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." That might as easily be a Rosie-the-riveter type of job. The Bush twins would be in no mortal peril under such a bill.

Personally, I think that women should be required to serve in non-combat duties if men are. There are something like five non-combat, support jobs for every combat job in the Airforce. I'm not certain of the other branches. That's a lot of positions to fill.

Since Pal Elspeth brought up the menstruation factor, I'll take that a bit further. I've had a lot of friends who participated in chem warfare exercises when they were on their periods. It was awful..over one hundred degrees in those suits and they'd have to wear them all day (this was when stationed in Korea, I don't think the exercises are that long here). When they simulate a chemical attack, there is no going to the bathroom until you decontaminate and go into a pressurized facility. Basically, you just urinate in your pants and sit in it for a long time. Imagine hygiene, and potential health-related problems there. If a man had a similar sort of medical condition, it would disqualify him from many military jobs.

Continuous exposure to high stress environments can make your reproductive system shut down, hibernate so to speak, until conditions improve. Half the females in my platoon went into "shock." The physiological knee-jerk reaction stopped menstruation. We got as much food and rest as male platoons but the nervous and phycological strain was too much. I was lucky to be counted among this group. The other half, poor souls, menstruated in tangent with one another by the third month (except for those on BCP).

Before anyone takes a swipe at the military for permitting these stressful conditions this natural response is a blessing in a war theater. I didn't have to bother with hygiene for an additional three months after boot camp, not to mention pregnancy if raped. Before leaving A-school I had a routine checkup. The issue came up when the *male* Navy corpsman filling a survey said I had to take something right away because skipping periods was "unnatural." By the look on his face I must have scowled.

The period is not a valid excuse for staying out of the front lines. If you want to choke an operation attack supply, not the front line, and that's where you'll find most women. Just because you're in the rear with the gear doesn't mean you will never have to jump into a charcoal-lined chem suit and gas mask. I was in a decontamination team as part of a CGI inspection overseas. You can do it outside the chem suit if conditions allow it, but I'd rather soil myself any day than risk exposure to a blister agent in that area.

As for this equal work for equal pay nonsense that resurfaces... the average woman can't hump a MK19 tripod inside a chem suit with standard issue 782 gear and M16. Simply put, I don't have the muscle and bone density, ligament strength to withstand the kind of pressure 50+ lbs has on the body when my heel strikes the ground (or worse, sand); not to mention the additional weight effect of gravitational pull that can actually trigger a tank mine with enough human weight/pressure. You're lucky on a light hump if open blisters and a pulled groin tendon is the worst that happens. I've had the displeasure of experiencing both on a ten mile trek.

Not saying it's impossible for women to serve on the front lines as a grunt for physical disqualifications (though I think they should stay out of the front lines for other reasons) but the military would have to take the time and funds to train women for a weight lifting competition. Despite the physical limitations that keep women away from the front lines, don't interpret your twig and two berries as license for a fatter check. Women need to serve but a significant male:female ratio is commonplace. There are plenty of men in the rear with the gear, in administrative roles as well, gasping at paper cuts and making my eyes roll.

yes, women want equal rights...and as soon as i get it , i'll be happy to tell my daughter, go register.

states sat on the era bill for the entire 10 years, until it ran out of ratification time. when men are willing to extend the constitution to women....then we'll talk....until then, leave my daughter out of this mess.

and let's not forget who started this mess....GW and his hawks. not women.

Rice had a sex change?

Equal rights are for equal people. That includes the gifted and idiots. A second X chromosome doesn't keep a woman from reaching a position of power, stop her from committing to the wrong course, and shelter her against a political fallout any more than men in office are let off scott free.

IMHO, the issue over women fighting over the front lines is a matter of choice and not desire. i.e. From my experience, i have learned that most women do not necessarily WANT to fight on the front lines, they just want the choice so that if one day in the near future they decide they want to they can. Makes sense since most people in general do not like being told what they can or cannot do.

I think women should be expected to register for the draft for many of the non-combative and less combative roles. The main reason that i believe women should not be on the front lines with men is because of the general effectiveness of the military would be damaged. A certain amount of cohesiveness must be intact in order to ensure discipline.

But of course, everyone has the right to fight for their country and nobody should be able to stop them. There are many ways to fight other than on the front lines and sometimes those jobs are just as important.

I voted other because I don't believe in drafting anyone for any kind of service. I'm a firm believer that nobody should be required to perform any kind of service. Each person must decide what he/she wants to do with his/her life.

I tend to believe that a just, appropriate, and right war would not require a draft, and therefore there should be no draft. However, if there is a draft, it should be for all adults eligible to vote and it should be completely random, and there should be no way out. If you're unfit for duty, you'll load trucks or pack MREs or something for 80h a week someplace 1000 miles from your home, until the war's over.

Either one would make it much harder to 'draft' people.

This issue was visited in the Supreme Court's decision in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). Men sued Selective Service because women were not subject to registration. The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. That narrow decision avoids the larger question, which has yet to be looked at by SCOTUS. But in order to properly proceed, the Selective Service would have to demonstrate a pressing 'need.'

On the 'equal pay or I don't fight' issue: the black and hispanic populations are statistically economically disadvantaged as well, but no one is talking about giving them a pass. And BTW, the desegregation of the military helped African-Americans' efforts toward civil rights, as a generous side benefit.

'Equal RIGHTS or I don't fight?' Tell it to the gay soldiers who labored under 'Dont Ask; Dont Tell' right up until Stop Loss orders made them suddenly acceptable cannon fodder for the Iraq war. O, but don't worry overmuch, when the war is over, the military investigators will go back to reading their mail.

'I menstruate, so I can't fight in a chemical suit?' Soldiers with asthma have trouble with the suits, too. If they can hump inhalers, you can carry feminine hygiene products.




A lot of infantrymen lose the 'desire to fight on the front lines' after their first time under fire. They don't get to decide.

Now, all of that aside, I truly doubt the Republican Congress is stupid enough to institute a draft-- broadening the public impact of their irresposible failures to reign in the Executive's military adventures would mean the end of those outings.

Why would anyone at home tolerate a war fought by anything other than a domestic 'coalition of the willing?'

Do you actually know someone who "humps an inhaler", or are you pulling this out of the blue? Maybe you saw it in a movie? Asthma has been historically disqualifying for selective service, as are most other physical conditions which would make a person unable to perform combat duty. If a woman isn't strong enough to lug the equipment around, and exponentially more prone to injury, she is not a combat asset and will inhibit military readiness. That's the bottom line, and a pretty crucial factor during a time of such national security crisis we'd need to impose the draft.

Moderate to Severe asthma can be a disqualifier, yes.

But in your source is the sentence: "In Operation Desert Storm, 500 Army soldiers could not deploy because of asthma, and 200 who did deploy were then evacuated from the theater because of asthma." (Phillips YY. Recommendations for Modification of Accession and Retention Standards for Asthma. Office of The Surgeon General. Memorandum. 1991.)

That 500 soldiers with asthma could not deploy speaks to the fact that they were enlisted in the first place, and that they were about to be deployed to a combat zone likewise speaks to the fact that up until that point those soldiers were presumably flourishing. Asthma alone, therefore, was not thought to be an automatic disqualifier for military service, just deemed a disqualifier for THAT deployment.

Further, there is nothing to indicate that the 200 deployed soliders who were eventually evacuated because of asthma spontaneously contracted the condition in the course of their duties in the Gulf area. More likely, most had been serving without incident, also had mild asthma, and that mild condition was exacerbated in the desert conditions.

Many of those people who have mild asthma do carry emergency inhalers, even if their conditon was diagnosed in childhood and subsequently remitted. A life-threatening asthma attack where you're 10 can spook you for life. (Trust me )


To speak to your direct question: I did have one childhood friend with moderate asthma who served as a Marine in the Persian Gulf War, but I have no idea whether he still carried an inhaler with him as a grown man. I do recall that when he went to Annapolis, there was a great deal of medical fuss over whether he could do what needed to be done. He graduated without incident, so I assume either his condition remitted somewhat, or it wasn't a problem.



I am hardly advocating detailing women as Navy stevedores, Marine heavy machine gun operators, or even necessarily as Army infantry troops. That's getting ahead of the question. There are plenty of military tasks that women can perform admirably, and since actual re-instatement of the draft would only be politically possible in a full-mobilization type scenario, registration of females seems only wise.

The Selective Service might end up disqualifying 80% of women, who knows? But unless they're registered, you don't even have the machinery in place to make those decisions in a national emergency.

I also chose 'other' on the grounds that I'm against forcing someone to go to war.

I have a suspicion that there will eventually be mandatory service (rather than an outright draft) and that women will be included. The reason I think women will be included is:

During WW2 women went to work. When men came home, women were edged out. During the Vietnam war, the same thing happened, but to a lesser extent, correct?

This time, it would be harder to edge women back out of the workforce, since, although we are far from equal, we have made great strides and most of us young women work full time. Therefore, while those who fled to Canada lost out after the war to those who served in the job market, this time those who serve might lose out to women who don't.

That's my theory.

No. I'd vote against a bill/proposal which would force women to register for selective military service. I dont see anything but uneccessary harm coming from such a law. Women have enough pressures already, no need for more.

Should women be required to register for a possible draft?
1. Yes, women should also be required to serve their country
2. No, women are not meant to do the fighting


Hard to choose between the first 2 choices.
I voted other, but would have preferred to vote for both.

1. I am against the draft, men or women, except as needed for defense of our own country on our own terrain. Seems to me that our all volunteer force is doing the job competently enough.
2. The average man is more suited to front line combat than the average woman. If women are called to serve, or volunteer to serve, in close proximity to combat, they should be trained to fight. Near frontline support personnel get attacked and should be able to put up a defense.

Registering for service does not necessarily have to mean combat, or even being in the military. 2 years out of our lives to do something to serve our country is a small price to pay for the freedom and opportunities we enjoy.
I would add incentives that would make most of us want to "enlist", the first being guaranteed major medical coverage. No "veteran" would ever have to pay more than $5000 per year for medical needs, so none of us would have to worry about losing all we have to pay for heart bypass surgery or to get treatment for life threatening illnesses. And if they become disabled, during or after the service period, the $5000 per year is waived.
I would include any and all who are capable of doing anything that is needed. Only the severely handicapped would be excluded. Beats me why some of my friends were refused the chance to serve for minor things like nearsightedness, flat feet, or some problems with color blindness. They manage civilian jobs fine, and many of our military jobs are no more strenuous than the civilian jobs these so-called less than perfect specimens are doing.
There shouldn't be a draft when so many volunteers are turned away for dumb reasons.

I was uncertain on this simply because I feel that although women have as much of a responsiblity to serve their country as men, a requirement for their services when they turn the age of 18 is unsuitable. I feel that the minute group of women that are already serving or volunteering to be a part of military service does so out of their own free will and it should not become mandatory.

I chose "other" and agree fighting is not one of the jobs I see as a female duty.

Facts are facts. An greater number of females in the field are victimized by males than males being victimized by females.

I have reliable information of entire tents of women having to post a guard at the door of the tent to ward off night time attackers. This is the type friendly fire we do not need.

If females are required to register there have to be changes in the present field situations.

Besides, isn't this new "registration" intended, as the military explains it, to be a "skills registration"? (Somehow the humor of the military disguise of a draft escapes me.) Women can and have served their countries in times of war ijn a number of capacities.

I don't think the selective service should exist at all, but while it does there is absolutely no reason to be sexist in requirements. Hopefully nothing crazy will happen (again) and the draft will never be used, but if it is women should be right there fighting for their country the same as the men fighting for their country. I'm not implying that you should send a brigade of women to the front lines of the battle, the military has hundreds of different jobs, all important to its operation. Anyone who wants to live in this country should equally play their part to defend and serve.