Yep. There is absolutely no reason why they should have the ability to have any job in the military and yet not have to register for the draft like any man.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

X2. It works in Israel; it should work here.

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

If this goes through it will make it much more difficult (politically) to reinstate an actual draft.

Which is a good thing, IMHO.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

The funny thing is, the guy who authored it voted against it and didn't really want it as far as I can tell. He thought it'd create discussion and point out that the Defense Dept had not right to put women on the front line; he thinks Congress should decide that, and instead it passed 60-2.

Will this affect student loans?

This extraordinary. While I fundamentally oppose the draft, it should be evenhanded. I feel this will make it even less politically ok to instate one. Not that it has been ok recently. But a lot of Warhawks may think twice if their daughters can go.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

This seems to a popular opinion - that it's some kind of "punishment." Oh, you want to play solider girl? Here you go!

I'm all for it, but don't really think it's a punishment.

How is it a punishment? You want equal, then it should be equal. Period.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Just the tone/wording you (and others) use. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it. I'd just use wording like, "They should have been in selective service all along, and we're finally bringing selective service law into the 21st century."

I wouldn't have made a ton of sense to force every woman to register for selective service in the past, when they were only eligible for a fraction of the number of jobs that would need to be filled by a draft. There was no need. It makes sense to bring them along now that they have been made eligible for all those jobs.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

About time.

I'm sure you realize this, but women who want the military fields open to women are probably already in the military so having them be eligible for the draft is sort of a non-issue. And I'd say most women who want equal are fine with the draft, it's the politicians who won't let it happen...then it opens up discussion for other things being made equal too.

Yes, there are a handful of women who don't think women should be in combat but those women arent in the military and very few would probably even be eligible for the draft. The majority of women who want equal are fine with being treated equally to gain equal opportunity.

I said 21st century. I believe U.S. women over the past 20 years or so could have played a significant role in "WWIII?"

I'd argue that the women-in-combat argument is fairly invalid at this point (regardless of the whether it's a man or woman who holds the opinion). There are lots of other jobs. It could even be argued that in a war where's there's a shortage of combat troops, having women in selective service doing a lot of the behind-the-lines jobs frees up men for combat arms.

Are we all so old that we don't remember what 18 to 25 year old girls are like? This is non-sense. There are certainly girls of that age that are capable of serving on the front lines, and if they chose to volunteer, I'm sure they will make great soldiers, but please, think back to some of the girls you dated in high school and college. Would you want to have your life in their hands?

'Murica!!

Thanks Obama!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

I'm sure many women could say the same things about the 18-25 year-old men they dated. You want to hand Johnny Manziel an M4 right now?

The military has an indoctrination period. And a process of attrition. There are processes to prevent unreliable people (of any sex) from being given important critical responsibilities.

It can be astonishing how quickly kids who seem utterly immature and useless - when subjected to the combination of military indoc and a country in genuine peril - will rise to the occasion.

There are lots of other jobs. It could even be argued that in a war where's there's a shortage of combat troops, having women in selective service doing a lot of the behind-the-lines jobs frees up men for combat arms

Honest question: does this mean that it is OK for men to fight and die but not for women? Why would't they too fight and die on the front?

      
I'm just replying with my opinion.




No. Gender alone shouldn't be a factor in deciding whom to place "in harm's way." E.g. if you have the option of an equally qualified male or female pilot to send into a heavily defended airspace, gender shouldn't be a deciding factor.



They would (and already do). The issue is that they may not be proportionally represented on the "front lines" (if such a thing exists anymore) just because they're significantly less likely to qualify for, excel in, or volunteer for, the demands of those jobs. Particularly the physical demands. Boys fantasize about being a SEAL. Not very many women do. Men are bigger and stronger specifically to make us more suitable for combat! So it could be that even in a largely gender-neutral (but still performance-based) military, men will die a lot more. Tough shit. Man-up.

At least until the mech warriors replace the humans on the front.

Very clear, thank you :-)

Actually, what you said is that they "should have been in selective service all along..." I assumed "all along" meant what most people would assume it to mean.

Yes, in the past 20 years, or any previous timeframe, they would play a significant role. They did in WWII, and Vietnam, etc. But their role, although significant, was small enough in numbers that a draft wasn't necessary because there were enough volunteers.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You don't use a draft to recruit bodies for SEALs or other special forces. You use it to fill infantry jobs and other jobs that need large numbers of bodies, but not as much specialized training.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sure does:

http://acidcow.com/...exy-soliders-54.html

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

but please, think back to some of the girls you dated in high school and college. Would you want to have your life in their hands?

Think back to the way guys were in HS and you come to the same conclusion. In fact this is part of the reason they go after young people, they don't have the fear of dying you get the older you are.

The military is a system that has spent a whole lot of time, resources and effort taking those "HS Kids" and turning them into soldiers. If they can do it with guys they can do it with girls...or simply break them entirely, just like they do some guys.

There's little doubt in my mind that we can get women "Combat ready", I'm just not sure our society is ready for consequences of those choices. Like it or not we still have different societal expectations for the sexes.

~Matt

Hmmm, looks like I'm going to be the token conservative on this one. I have a problem with women in the draft for exactly one reason:

Who will take care of the kids when they get drafted?

Discuss.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I'm pretty sure they won't draft two parents. So if the women is the better candidate, then the father can parent.

Nobody's drafting the kids. Even if they were drafting the kids, then the military assumes responsibility of taking care of them.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

I figure you'd have to put in provisions for parents with children.

I'd always thought things like "no women in the draft" or "women and children first," should be about providing for the children and not about women being weak. Now, *obviously* on average women are less physically capable than men, but that doesn't mean that can't perform some role in the military.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

After initial training (indoctrination and specific job training), most military jobs do not prevent active parenting from one or both actively serving parents unless they are deployed or assigned unaccompanied orders. In cases of deployment ( or a war which would "necessitate" a draft ), each military service member must execute his/her approved family care plan which identifies a prioritized list of people that will provide primary care for all dependents if the service member is not able to. This list typically includes grand-parents, relatives, or close trusted friends. Military service members without a viable, approved family care plan are not considered deploy-able.

Another 'easy' response to your question is the father.

Both cases require pressing the I-Believe button on some fundamental assumptions (available father, available social support network), none of which I think are insurmountable for the majority of people (even though not possible for 100% of the population, I recognize).

Funny that - I thought it was to do with men being expendable (as in women can bear children, so need to be protected, whereas men can be almost wiped out but a few men could, in theory, repopulate the tribe/nation. Just don't lose all the men or there's no-one to impregnate the remaining women)

---

Swim. Overbike. Walk.