The thread about the possibility of reinstating the draft inspired this poll. As it is, 18-year-old men, not women, are required to register at their post office. Happy Birthday!

Please share your thoughts.

I have to go with "other."

I don't think anybody should have to register for the Selective Service, which should just be disbanded.

Let's assume this is not an option. In which case, I would have to say that the current policy is just plain sexist and unfair to men. If there is going to be some form of mandatory national service (and the very idea makes me sick) than it should be for anyone who is capable of it.

I always thought the only reason females weren't required to register for the draft was because of the repopulation issue. Supposedly it easier for one (lucky) man to repopulate the United States then it would be to have one (unlucky) lady try to.

I went with other for the same reasons as Victoria. I don't think that men or women should have to register for selective service, but to require only men to register when both genders could play a role is inherently sexist.

I see no reason to exempt women from service.

If servicepeople are required, there should not be discrimination based upon sex.

That said, I don't feel women should fill combat roles. But I think we all know that the military isn't made up of all front line troops the way it once was. So there should be plenty of non-combat roles which need filling.

I agree with Amlord. If people want equality, they should except the responsibilities that go along with that. I am all for women registering at 18. I tried to join the military, but was medically disqualified. Personally, I think everyone should be in the military, national guard, peace core or the Red Cross. I think serving your nation, community or humanity is very good for the development of a youths character, regardless of gender.

I agree with you on that, but don't you think that its kind of forcing people against there will. Most people think that the war is bad, i personally think its ok and i am not against it. What if one of those people who doesn't like war is forced to fight, what would they think of their country.

Well I'm pretty sure thats why she mentioned the peace corps. I think mandatory service is a good idea, but our government pays them too little as it is. Could we really afford to flood the system with troops in peacetime?

I whole heartily agree. Our service men and women definitely aren't paid enough. As to your second point, unfortunately it doesn't look like "peace time" will be anytime soon...

You mentioned the peace core, if i recall during Vietnam the peace corps were made ready to fight and some of them were actually sent to Vietnam. If the government wants a war then they'll get every enlisted man and woman to fight for them.

I teach military history, and I have never read of any militarization of the Peace Corps.

Of course women should have to register, though like others, I believe the Selective Service should be disbanded.

Women want equal rights, they should get equal rights, and that includes being required to fight for our country, for our freedom.

Does that include time on the front line? Equal rights brings equal responsibility. Look at what might of happened to PFC Lynch, and she wasn't even on the front lines. If we send females into a environment where women are still treated like meat, no not bars, and they are captured, think about the potential for abuse inflicted by their captors.

I guess I'll be the oddball. I have my doubts about female registration. No concrete evidence, no polls, just experience with other women in the military. There are always people, both men and women, trying to shirk duty. And that's with men and women who signed up.

I don't think our society is nearly... ah, feminist enough, for lack of a better term, to draft females. If political/social/economic rights and responsibilities were impressed evenhandedly on both sexes from a very early age, the draft could be applied with success. As it is, I think young women would develop a surprising desire to birth babies to dodge the draft.



Does that mean handicapped people are less deserving of equal rights?



I don't have a problem with women that want to serve in that capacity as long as the bar isn't lowered. Let them pursue their goals of general if they can hack it. Male endowments are not a shield against assault and abuse. I'm actually more worried for women in support roles working alongside male counterparts that are supposed to be allies:

Yeah, I would be for requiring them. I believe Israel and other nations ahve women fighting next to men in foxholes. I understand arguments against it, but there are many women out there who are mentally and physically able to get the job done.

You cant dismiss one form of discrimination against men whilst supporting another against women. In effect , forcing women to join then not allowing them in combat roles would be discrimination.

For those of you who believe women should not be in combat roles, then I would think female registration uneccessary, however if you are willing to accept that women fight alonside men for your country, then of course register all females at 18.

I hope we never have to send people to fight who dont want to go.

I have always had a real chip on my shoulder about the issue of women not having to submit to the selective service. Nor in the military are they required to perform the same PT test, nor cut thier hair all off, nor perform in combat roles, and this is all very sexist. Funny how you don't see demonstrations by NOW etc over this one eh? LOL

This is an area that if women in the military want equal pay, they should endure equal treatment. They should have to shave thier heads, do 40 pushups and 40 situps, run 2 miles in under 16 minutes. I also don't believe in lowering the bar for age either- and I am almost 40 and can pass the PT test for a 17 year old!

There should be no bar to any area of service either, including combat positions and combat units. I also feel the same way about gays in the military. IF sexual issues arise from gays or women in units, then, there is more problem with discipline than who is doing what to whom.

I am all for equality, including equal responsibility. The only thing that should bar someone is inability to do the job.

That being said, I am totally against the draft in every way. If our nation can not protect our country with a volunteer army, we are either stretching our military too thin for political reasons instead of true national security (as we are now) or our country frankly deserves to be over run (in case of actual invasion, in WW2 there were lines of poeple enlisting).

This is false. Israel drafts both men and women, but women do not fill combat positions. They have been excluded from combat units since after Israel's War of Liberation. Women were never again sent to battle because of the problems it caused...men took actions to protect the women, thus endangering their own lives and their mission.

Women in the Israeli military are, however, very capable in other military postions (even elite counter-terrorist forces). But are excluded from infantry and direct combat, from pragmatic experience.

Mrs P is right about Isreal- they also have been proven to make far superior drill sargeants BTW- however, in time of war, there have been countries that have certainly used women in combat without any handwringing whatsoever- Russia used women snipers to great success, and they even had a day celebrating them recently on thier aniversery this last year.

Quite frankly, what men think about women is irrelevent when the order to do this comes down. Every change in the military that has been resisted has been allowed by the top brass. Desegregation in the military was fought because of "morale of the troops" - very similar argument as for females and gays. When it was decided it wouldn't be tolerated anymore- it basically ended- and when racism in the military raises it's ugly head- it is dealt with very harshly, though I did see some in the officer ranks once, but only once. My father was a CSMJ- and he was around very early on the desegregation- and he confirmed this- when racism was against orders, both overt and unofficially (military poeple know what I mean here)- the acceptance was over.

I have to go with other as well for the same reasons as Victoria and Cyan. I favor no forced service of any kind. While I find compelling evidence that some kind of service, military, peace corps, etc. is good for a person I think that you would also find that making such a thing cumpulory would reverse the good in the situation.

Further, although I believe that there should NEVER be a draft under any circumstance IF you accept that there should be a draft BOTH sexes should be forced to register because it is inherently sexist if this is not the case (for example now).

I think that the reason that the "repopulation issue" is currently mute is that for it to become a problem our troops would have to be virtually wiped out AND our homeland bombed causing massive domestic deathtolls. However, if this where to occur within the USA then we would see massive "female" casualties if the army was all "men." Thus the point becomes mute because for there to be a need to "repopulate the US" both foreign and domestic deathtolls amongst all genders would have to be high enough that it wouldn't matter anymore.

To cruisingram I have one problem with your "standards" and that is that they are not standard except from a male-dominated societal standpoint. Do I think that the PT test should be the same for men and women yes. Do I think that the requirements should change: yes. Men score higher on pushups on a fiarly consistant basis but women score higher on flexibility exams. BOTH skills are good for troops, but only one is truly important on the PT exam as it currently exists. You mention a 1 mile run. Fine, but you should couple that with heartrate recovery or ability to observe during the run two facets not currently measured but skills that are positive and more predominant in women. The problem is that the PT test as it exists is a "male" fitness test and to make it truly assess the ability to be a well trained soldier it would have to change to include some "female" stongpoints that are currently ignored.

All of that said fair is fair, everything should be equal and this means equal registration. Equal front line opportunities, equal pay, equal advancement.

As a semi-related sidenote I favor the Equal Rights Amendment with a couple twists. I don't think it should stop at sex, but should include all the following as well: sex, gender, religious or philosophical backround, political affiliation, race, national origin, sexual orientation, and maritla status. Kind of like the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments on steroids.

"To cruisingram I have one problem with your "standards" and that is that they are not standard except from a male-dominated societal standpoint. Do I think that the PT test should be the same for men and women yes. Do I think that the requirements should change: yes. Men score higher on pushups on a fiarly consistant basis but women score higher on flexibility exams. BOTH skills are good for troops, but only one is truly important on the PT exam as it currently exists. You mention a 1 mile run. Fine, but you should couple that with heartrate recovery or ability to observe during the run two facets not currently measured but skills that are positive and more predominant in women. The problem is that the PT test as it exists is a "male" fitness test and to make it truly assess the ability to be a well trained soldier it would have to change to include some "female" stongpoints that are currently ignored."

The PT test is designed (mostly) to the needs of a combat soldier- there are many males that flunk out of the military completely because of failure to meet the PT standards- and BTW- it is a 2 mile run, and over the course of time, of course, there is forced marches. The upper body strength issue is real- a fully loaded combat soldier has to carry upwards of 80 pounds- if you weigh 120 pounds, vs you wiegh 200 pounds, this can be a problem, but it can be a problem for a 120 pound male as well as female. About 20% of the MALES in my platoon flunked the PT test (hey, it was a bad group I guess LOL) . So if it were just to keep the military male dominated, there would probably be different standards eh?

I am all for flunking ANYBODY that doesn't make the standards, male or female, young or old. I am also for one wieght category, one haircut, one uniform. Just pure equality.

I think it's depressing that so many people on here are against the draft. If they do start up the draft it's for a good reason, and if it's not (like Vietnam) the public will revolt and bring an end to it. Is it the fear of death? My brother, currently serving in Korea, keeps telling me an old Army slogan.

Freedom isn't Free

Hienlien once also said "It may be his finest hour, but it isn't his choice, so therefore, he isn't free"

If you are forced into something, you are no longer free Rev.

The best way for folks to vote against the idiocy of GW is to not enlist unfortunately.

Yes, women should register. No, they shouldn't be in combat service roles. No, the male-dominated societal standards shouldn't be changed. I don't care if a soldier can touch his or her toes, or if that soldier's heart can recover from a run fast. I want that soldier to be able to hump 50 pounds of mortar rounds up some mountain to lay fire into the enemy.

Women can hump 50 lbs of mortar. The fact that you think they cannot is sexist.

Rev you may be right that the people will revolt when it isn't a just draft. But answer me this: how many years did it take to get us out of Nam? How many draftees died? How many people who wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for this illegitimate draft died? THese are people, breathing, loving people who died for something even s supporter of the draft like yourself admits was illegitimate.

If the PT test is all about how effective you are in combat why idn't their a test of periferal vision while running? Where is the reaction speed test? I can make a set of standards that 20% of women fail and 99% of men fail, but those standards would still be sexist.

I also don't think that a required haircut makes sense, maybe a required hair lenth that will not exceed the helmet, but not as short as it is. What is the benefit here except to remove individuality.

PoxAmericana, I may be sexist, but I have 18 years of experience humping mortar rounds, among other things. The majority of our 'nintendo generation' males can't do it for more than a mile, so why are you so quick to condemn those who think the majority of women can't.
Yes, there are some that can. But let's be realistic.

As for modifying the PT test, I agree to an extent. The testing you propose, however, is not necessary or feasible for the majority of troops, Special Operations candidates do some testing along those lines, but we simply cannot train all soldiers to serve in elite units. I would propose a series of short muscular strength tests (like the ability to kick in a door, or drag a body for a certain distance), coupled with endurance testing such as swimming in combat gear and ruck marching. Sadly, these tests I propose would fail the majority of females if we had lower standards for them.

I'll gladly concede that most women are probably smarter than me (ladies.... ), but the plain fact is most men are stronger physically.

That being said, I do not favor the draft, nor the Selective Service. I think it is outdated and a tax drain on my wallet.
I have absolutely no problem with females in the service. My wife is not only in the Army, she currently commands a company in Iraq. She too would be the first to say (as she commands a mixed gender unit) that females, generally speaking would not cut it in Infantry units, as they do not (with exception) possess the muscular strength to perform the duties.

BTW....CR, feels good to know we can still outrun most of the young troopies doesn't it!

Yes, indeed, some women can move that 50lbs no problem, as there are some men who can not. As you move into more and more intense combat roles, the testing becomes more rigorous, including peripheral vision and recovery etc. The PT test is standard for the entire military. I just would like to see it the same standard, period.

Again, I am against any form of the draft. I served voluntarily, and will serve again soon. AS with any "job"- just because your boss/ceo is an immoral idiot, it does not mean your job is less honorable or less important in the larger scheme of things. Women have no more problems following orders or doing the mission as assigned where neccesary than men.

God forbid there is a draft again, but it should be equal for men and women.

edited to add-

didn't mean to double up on the same comment, you posted prior to me LOL

The statement was that a soldier had to be able to hump 50 lbs of mortar rounds. This precludes the possibilty of a woman being capable the way it was stated. That is very sexist. (for clarification purposes)

My point is that it should be equal but using old standards are not equal. You admit women are smarter and sometimes being smart is better than being stong, even in a combat situation.

I very carefully used gender-neutral terms in my statement.

I do not think that women should be in front-line companies, regardless of their individual abilities. I could possibly allow for an entirely female combat unit, though this is probably not even worth discussing.

Women are no smarter than men, nor are they dumber.

Having the same haircut, and losing one's individuality are important parts of forging an army out of recruits.

Another poll question with a political slant to the choices. How refreshing.

Women should not be required to register. How desperate of a Country are we when we "require" females to defend it.

Even the suggestion of "drafting females" shows how shallow this Country has become. (In my humble opinion)

I had to choose 'other' because I do not see a point to a draft of any type regardless. If anyone should do military fighting, I say it be those in Washington. They should strap on some ammo and hit the rocky road, since they enjoy controlling everyone else's lives.

But if there must be a draft, then I say yes, I don't see why women shouldn't. If we want true equality between races and sexes, then make it equal. Require everyone to do the same. Yet as I said, I don't see the point to a draft.

In thinking about the draft more thoroughly, although it is a discrimination of sorts there are some inherant problems for society with drafting both men and women.

Traditionally women are more than caretakers for their own immediate families, they are caretakers of the extended family and elders, the sick, they are the majority of community workers and volunteers with exceptions. Men generally volunteer for different things than women. The males left here would have to pick up all that slack in jobs they are not accustomed to doing.

If a family has 3 young children, 2 boys and 1 girl all of draft age, a family can lose all their children in a war. Now if a family has 3 boys the same could happen, however any of those boys could marry, leaving the women at home to care for the family when the men are off to war, and if they are subsequently killed. Draft the wives too and many families could see all of their offspring wiped out and noone to care for them when old, a big problem for society.

Reproduction is not such a bad argument either. First of all no women with children would be able to be drafted along with their men, since it leaves noone to care for them during, or if both get killed. I wonder how many women would go about getting pregnant to avoid the draft. Hence, a much bigger burden on the social system.

I dont think male draftees would be able to fight so effectively knowing that their wife is in the field. I know there are many soldiers wives who are in the military, by choice. Choice is different. This is a shared philosophy or her choice.
If women are drafted against their will their partners are not going to take it well, and possibly be driven to distraction, especially if they are not ( drafted) for any reason. If women were drafted I see society going into full scale revolt of the idea, mostly the men.

It has always been a support system for soldiers having their women safe at home, to write to and love, someone they have or might have children with someday, something deeper to fight for than some abstract idea of country. What is your country but the place your loved ones live? Remove that and fighting for your country, as in 'other' people suddenly doesnt sound so attractive.

Then there is the issue of rape. It is said that in every war 3 generations suffer because of the rapes, usually of civilians, but some female soldiers in Iraq are complaining about being raped by their fellow soldiers at this time. What happens in a soldiers or a partners head if he finds his wife or sister has been taken as a POW? What happens to the women? This could be very nasty. Soldiers are scarred enough by battle, nevermind compounding it with rape. Huge amounts of returning society could be damaged by this aftermath. Usually a soldier can count on his wife helping him through the rough spots when he returns, but what if both of them are messed up?

Simply food for thought.

Should women be expected to register for the draft?

Sure. Why not? A woman can be trained to kill for her country just like any dude.

And let's start by drafting the Bush Twins.

Redliner, if you don't like the slant to the poll choices, there is usually "other" in which you may differ yet still be counted.

I originated this poll. I tried to include a couple of reasons why someone would say yes or no to the question.

I also have a 10-year-old girl and two sons in their late twenties. One is in the Army National Guard in Kuwait. The other would go nowhere near a gun, much less anticipate joining the military. My daughter is against violence, but she hates the rank unfairness she sees in this world, and I cannot predict how she would respond were she older.

Do I want to see the draft reinstated for anyone? No way. One reason I started this poll was one poster in another thread stating that her children/grandchildren were "no better than" their father or grandfathers; therefore they should be required to take up arms in a war the same way their forebears did back for generations. Personally, I would like to think that after untold centuries of committing violence against our fellow human beings, we could finally come up with the determination to see our way peacefully out of conflicts. That's not cowardice; that's damn hard. It takes brains and vision.

Why should children be deprived of either parent if we can see our way peacefully through international conflicts? Why is the answer to kill the other people? What is it in any religious person that causes them to think their God would ever want them to go out and kill someone, whether it is in war or in administering punishment to someone who did the ultimate wrong of murder here?

It is our value system (if you can call it that), not God's, that tells us that we have the right or the mandate to take the life of another human being. And those who come home from using guns to kill and make the mistake of using a gun to kill when they're back home, maybe in their own home, who will pay the price for killing someone without being ordered to. Is it right or wrong to settle problems this way? Apparently there is one set of right and wrong between humans in "peacetime," and another set of right and wrong between humans during times of war. Yet both actions end up in the cessation of life for a human being.

I just didn't know what the current draftable generation thought about one gender being singled out to answer the call should the call come. Obviously the responses are varied.

I certainly did not mean to offend anyone.

I'm curious how you suggest to maintain equal standards for a non-volunteer force, which is the topic here. Obviously, women are not as strong, and have a lower endurance, than men. If that wasn't the case, they'd be competing equally with each other in professional sports.

I think both sexs should be eligible for the draft. There are many positions which women could fill very well, but women should absolutely not be expected to fill combat positions. I am also against the draft, under most circumstances, anyway.

Why shouldn't women be used to fill combat positions Pigpen(assuming a draft must and does occur...)? I am probably less physically capable as an average woman and yet I could theoretically get plugged into the front lines if I wasn't a pacifist objector. So why can't women be used to fill cobat positions since they are OBVIOUSLY as good as men to fill the spots?

Because women are weaker (not just a little weaker, catastrophically weaker) and have less endurance, than men. They are also more prone to injury and infection from hygiene problems which they would encounter in the field. Plug a less physically capable person in the front lines and they might serve as fodder, but I don't expect that would be the best way to put good people to use.

Now, please back your assertion that women are OBVIOUSLY just as good at filling combat positions as men. It has been tried in the past and failed. The Russians even had a female only battalion around the end of the first world war (nicknamed the 'battalion of death'- not because those women were such great killers).
Edited to add link: Those above dismal statistics (and further information on the link) are for a volunteer force, when there is significant personal incentive to do well. I'd expect that the results would be much less optimistic for a non-volunteer force.

Theoretically. But speaking for the Army...and specifically the Infantry, combat arms is a competitive field. Just because you are a male, doesn't mean you would last long in an Infantry unit. We sometimes get 90 lb weaklings, but they don't stay long before they are sent packing, either home to a support assignment.
Males like these are already ostracized. If we open the Infantry to women as some sort of a social experiment, we won't get only the most physically fit, why, that might be discriminatory.

I think the time will come when women will be integrated into all fields of the military. But it won't be anytime soon.
But referencing the original question.......I do believe that IF there had to be a draft, that both sexes should be equally capable of being drafted into the appropriate branches and fields.

• The Army tried twice in the early 1980s to implement realistic strength standards, commensurate with wartime demands, in occupations rated from light to very heavy. In both instances, tests showed that most women were unable to meet the standards for nearly 70% of Army occupational specialties. The recommendations were never implemented as planned because the former Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) complained that such systems would have a “disproportionate impact” on the careers of female soldiers.


This was my time in and I was around when all this hoopla was taking place. I am still a little angry that women that do not have to meet the same skills and physical standards are allowed a lower standard to be promoted over those that have to meet the higher standard- i.e.- “disproportionate impact” - I am all for equal pay and promotion for equal work and skill level- but this is wrong.

Like DTOM said- there were lot's of guys that flunked out of a lot of the different very competitive combat positions- so the flunk rate will be higher for women- but there WILL be women that can do it- no matter how tough.

But, I guess this is off topic- because I don't think anyone should be drafted, and think that women will find it easier to get pregnant than to serve- and we don't need that for a family planning practise LOL

let me combine a couple things you all have been saying to illustrate my continuing disent.
Pigpen wrote:

Dontreadonme wrote


Okay lets examine what these two statements mean together. This means that the "weaker" women and men that cannot fullfill combat positions would end up in support positions and "stonger" men and women would end up filling combat positons. Currently even though I am one of those 98 (or 125lb) weaklings I am expected to be in the infantry first and only after failing am I relegated to support. While women are relegated to support and cannot be front line infantry reguardless. THe expectation in a non-volunteer draft force should be that all people are infantry until they "fail" at infantry and are relegated to support. Because the goal of such a non-volunteeer force is to replenish frontline troops.

Pigpen wrote:


Actually this isn't true. Nearly a dozen sports and medical journals have published studies and case examples illustrating that the long standing belief that men have more endurance than women is actually quite the opposite. One journal published a link between endurance and pain tolerance which it claimed wa higher in women and evoluntion due to childbirth. Obiously one of the problems facing true equality is a populus to enamored with false truths it is sure of and unwilling to do the reading to debunk these lies.

(sources include Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, The Wilson County Advocate, Las Vegas Review-Journal, McMaster University Health Sciences Department, Runner's World, etc)

CruisingRam, as indicated on another post these objective "tests" are not objective at all, they are male dominated standards. For example women score better on exceptionally long endurance tests. THey also score higher on processing details or multitasking yet these standards are not considered. Lets look at the IQ test. Men score higher on average than women (barely). A little known fact is that the first 4 times that the IQ test was released it was rejected immediately because women scored higher than men on it. The military is the same way. THey are not testing the best means of being a soldier, they are testing for the best means of being a usual/standard model male soldier. Further this was the early 80s in testing and mindset (which included plans by the RR administration to intern all Arabs in the US) which was still very discriminatory and in favor of maintaining the status quo at any cost. The 80s requirements themselves for these military specialties are designed not to get the best personel only but also to limit the chances of women. Even with the "lower standard" they are still biased against women because they are testing the wrong things. I challenge any man to meet the standards set by a group of progeressive women for the creation of an elite fighting force based upon their model. I cannot find the link anywhere online but in one of my women's studies classes in college we were given a current PT test and army model and one thought of by this group of feminist professors. both produce strong sustainable military forces, they just expect different and think different than the current model.

You haven't provided any links to back up these claims at all. Where are the studies that indicate women have better endurance? This should be easy, because, apparently, 'nearly a dozen' sports and medical journals say it is so. I have provided mine, which indicate that they do not. If this is a 'false truth', I suggest you prove otherwise.

Here is more from my last link:

Now, less than 3 percent of the total women scored the male average. Less than 20 percent could barely squeak by with the very minimum male score. It is essentially irrelevant that a woman could theoretically train for months and put on their nike airs and run a marathon. What matters is whether or not they could perform acceptably while wearing fifty pounds of equipment, or pull an injured soldier to safety. That isn't something a medical journal would tell you, but it is something tried and true real military training tests, and a history of dubious outcome for females in combat would.

This link is from 1994 and more have come thince then.

http://www.drmirkin.com/archive/6303.html

This one is from 2000 and while it is not the journal article it referances it and is a legitimate news sorce.

http://kcci-tvhealth.ip2m.com/index.cfm?pt...&site_cat_id=77

Here are more sources I didn't even bother listing initially.

http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/healt...79p-47980c.html
http://www.runnersworld.com/home/0,1300,1-...e=WomensRunning
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/quer...7&dopt=Abstract
http://kcci-tvhealth.ip2m.com/index.cfm?Pa...2&Site_Cat_ID=6

Those are some online ones. If you want to educate yourself by reading actual journal articles here are some from a paper I wrote on the subject from the bibliograpghy. Not to mention the others I referanced vaguely. I read those since this bibliography so I don't have those ones in font of me but this should do.

Davies & Thompson, European Journal of Applied Physiology 41: 233-45, 1979; Mayhew et al., European Journal of Applied Physiology 65: 561-6, 1992; Ramsbottom et al., Journal of Sports Medicine 19: 39-44, 1979; Hagan et al., Journal of Applied Physiology 49: 571-5, 1980; Cureton & Sparling, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 12: 288-94, 1980; Maughan & Leiper, European Journal of Applied Physiology 52: 80-7, 1983; Sparling & Cureton, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 15: 218-23, 1983; Bunc & Heller, European Journal of Applied Physiology 59: 178-83, 1989; Ramsbottom et al, Journal of Sports Sciences 7: 9-20, 1989; Padilla et al., Journal of Sports Sciences 10: 119-29, 1992; Ariens et al., European Journal of Applied Physiology 76: 214-20, 1997

I was going to vote "other" but changed my mind to "only after the equal rights amendment passes".

Here are the thoughts that ran through my mind as I read the poll questions:

1) There should be NO mandatory military duty. If the US is fighting a truly just war to protect our freedoms or lives, there will be plenty of people willing to sign up. It's been a long time since there was a war like that. No one should be forced to fight in wars started by old men for political or economic reasons. The fact that they need to force service is a good indicator that the reasons for fighting may not be on the up and up.

2) I do think that selective service is sexist towards men, however while we have "come a long way, baby" we still have a long way to go until we've acheived equality. 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.

We would also need to be vigorous in prosecuting sexual assault in the military and dismantling the "old boys club" that makes hazing and sexual assault in the military and military schools possible.

I am against the draft, period, for men or women, and for mostly selfish reasons. Though I do not have children of my own, I have two nephews, 18 and 20, one graduating high school and the other in college. With the new draft laws, there is no college deferment (you get to postpone to the end of the next semester, big whoop).

I don't want to see them become fodder for a deserter and his bunch of Cold War era cronies' vendettas against a country whose only strategic value is in its oil wells.

I guess I am the only one thinking along these lines, but I would say "no" to women being required to register for the draft upon turning 18 - and here's why:

1. Not only are women responsible for carrying the child when pregnancy occurs, but once that child is born it is in the child's best interest (in terms of health) to have his/her mother. I am very pro-breastfeeding, and sorry, but it's impossible to breastfeed your child when you have been drafted and are an ocean or more away from your child. I wouldn't look down on someone for formula feeding, but medical research time and time again says that breastfeeding is best and I don't think it would be at all fair to put millions of children's health at risk just to say we're "PC" and for "equal rights". That makes no sense to me.
The only real "requirement" men have in the reproduction process is providing sperm. A woman must carry the child for 9 months and then upon birth, a woman is the one who provides sustenance for that child. Scientifically speaking, men are essentially "done" once that sperm has joined the egg and fertilized it. Men do not NEED to be present to bear children, however women do. If the draft was reinstated and then extended to include women, there would be a multitude of problems with respect to reproductive issues...

2. Women would, quite obviously, attempt to get pregnant if/when they were drafted. Quite obviously pregnant women would need to be exempt from being drafted, so what's to stop women from getting pregnant as a "draft dodging" method similar to men hurriedly joining college to avoid the draft (or other such things)? Nothing. The only thing that would be accomplished by requiring women to register for the draft/selective service is a false sense of "equality and "fairness to men".

3. Men and women ARE different in terms of physical prowess/limitations. The average women would simply not be able to "hack it" with the average man out in the field. I just don't see how requiring women to register would make sense from a force effectiveness standpoint.

4. Morale would likely suffer if women and men were drafted along side one another. Someone else suggested that the "women at home" during war times in the past kept the men out there in the field/combat sane and focused on doing their job and returning home to their families. Men seem to naturally try to protect women and I would think that, especially since many or most of the women would NOT be there by choice, would be worried about the welfare of the women enough to retract from their duties in combat. My husband has mentioned this before (he's active duty Army) - that his male counterparts are sort of "different" when there are women around in training/field environments - less effective, more nervous, not to mention less focused on the task at hand.

What purpose would be served by forcing women to serve alongside men in the event of a draft? None that I can see, other than being able to say that men aren't carrying the burden of fighting for the country alone. Just as before, women would fulfill whatever roles were needed once men went off to war - but forcing women into combat just doesn't make any sense for a variety of reasons, most importantly reproductive reasons and related issues (breastfeeding, etc.).

Oh and of course, I'm 100% against the draft for anyone - I don't think anyone should be forced to serve and since I'm extremely anti-war (yes, the lovely anti-war military wife that I am ), I don't know what I'd do if I were made to fight. I would think we would have enough vounteer servicemen and women if our freedoms were really at stake and war was "necessary".

I voted "other". I, like many others, do not believe that there should be a draft to begin with. It is against my convictions to fight in a war and I have strong moral objections to sending men off to die against their will. If there are men and women who are willing to die for this country voluntarily, more power to them. They are much stronger and braver than I could ever possibly hope to be and I have nothing but infinite respect for them. I think that if the threat is strong enough, people will be more than willing to enlist to protect their way of life and the people they love.

I voted other for this one. I feel that neither sex should have to register ever. However if one sex must than so should the other. I know that their are issues regarding both sexes in the sam eunit (other threads for that), so those issues aside yes if men are required so shuold women. Several reasons:
1) Possibility of all woman units get rid of most of those issues.
2) As long as front line combat requires VERY specific physical requirements that men are obviously MORE apt to meet, than we will always see women as a tiny minority on the combat field.
3) In a draft situation, unless it is a completely random lottery format (im not entirely sure), than perhaps male draftees would naturally be favored and thus hired in greater numbers.

I voted yes, women should register. THough, after reading other posts, I probably should have voted other because I don't think the draft should ever be reinstated. That being said, however, men in this country still register at age 18 even though there is no active draft, so I think the women should be signing up at age 18 too.

Yes, women could get pregnant to dodge - but men can do a number of things to dodge as well, so I don't see how the potential for women to dodge the draft is a good reason to exclude them. Plus, I bet any pregnancy exclusion would be for a limited amount of time - women in the US army aren't getting two years off after a baby is born (unlike other countries). So if a woman is dodging by getting pregnant, she would no doubt have a limited amount of time with baby (prob four to six months max) before she was expected to show up for service. So, unless there are a lot of women who would be willing to be constantly pregnant from age 18 to 25 just to avoid service to one's country, then I don't see pregnancy as a wonderful way to dodge... college would be better - its practically guaranteed four years, plus add time to get a masters or even phd or md, you've got many years available to you, and you wouldn't have diapers to worry about. But, men can use this method as well... Another way to do it is just be so grotesquesly fat and out of shape you are exempt for health reasons - this is something that once again, both sexes are able to do...

As far as women in the front lines... one thing the continued situation in Iraq shows us is the front line is not where it used to be. Many of the troops that get attacked (especially now in the nation building phase) are support troops - cooks, engineers, ops, etc. This is why the military is now training all military personnel to face frontline combat conditions. Having never seen the frontlines, I can only let the military figure out if they want women there - but they should at least put any women through the same rigorous training as any other support ops. Judging from friends in the military, I don't think this is a problem now in our volunteer army - but any draft would start causing problems of undertrained combatants - thats both male and female draftees. My uncles both thought the draftees fighting in Vietnam often ended up causing many serious problems due to lack of training... this is something that our modern army does not need.

But I digress... that really has nothing to do with women and the draft. If the draft were ever (however unadvisable) reinstated, then I feel both men and women should sign up. If women are at that time, still not considered suitable for frontline combat, then there would have to be some way to assure enough people were drafted for the "frontline" positions needing filled, but still there would be no reason not to draft women to fill those non-frontline spots.