Should Women be Drafted along with Men?

[antigone382]

I hope I'm not asking for a flame war.

I believe in equal rights and equal responsibilities. While I wouldn't call a man a chauvenist pig if he held the door open for me or paid for a meal on a date, etc., I don't expect men to do those things, and I'd really just as soon do them myself. As a firm believer in equality between the sexes, I'm posing this question to fellow DUers. ERA was long before my time, but I know that one of the major reasons it didn't pass was because of the possibility of women being included in the draft.

Now, with current events being what they are, I think I should clarify. I'm not necessarily referring to the possibility of a draft in the near future, but just to the draft in general. Suppose we ever were in a "just" war--if there is such a thing--like say in some hypothetical situation another country invaded (yeah, I know that's about impossible, but humor me), and a draft became necessary to continue fighting, how would it be fair if men were drafted and women weren't?

Even if you believe that women should not be put in active combat (and I'm not saying I do or don't), there are tons of jobs in the military that women would be just as capable of doing as men. It just doesn't seem fair to me that men should bear the sole responsibility of defending their country involuntarily.

But anyway, that's enough of my opinion. I want to know what everybody else thinks. Do you think women should be included in the draft, and why or why not?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Absolutely!

Equality for all ya know. They should also be eligible to be drafted into combat positions.

[Andromeda]

85. As it stands now women do get called

when they are in the reserves leaving behind small children who may not have either parent available if both mom and dad are serving at the same time.

Women's military service should be voluntary.

Since women bear the children and are the ones who nurture and take care of them in their formative years I think it's a mistake to take them away from their children/child.

Single mothers sometimes do not have family to help them with child care and that would impact negatively on that child's life.

If women volunteer for military service and have no dependents to worry about then there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve their country in any capacity they wish.

[bahrbearian]

2. If they can Wrestle in the Olyimpic's Yes.

I wish I were able to still Wrestle,,, I quess I could coach.

[mopinko]

3. i think so

the world will be a different place when most women know how to handle an automatic weapon. infantilzing women does them no service. the civil rights movement was launched by men who came back from serving their country, only to be treated like second class citizens. women vets would do the same, to the betterment of the planet.

[serryjw]

26. Can you send me a jpeg of that PIC?

check my email...thanks

[ElsewheresDaughter]

79. NEITHER MEN NOR WOMEN!...I AM A NON-VOILENCE PASIFIST..

GOD FORGIVE ME ..I JUST CAN'T HELP IT!

[enigmatic]

4. Absolutely. Period.

[Cleita]

5. If men can be drafted so should women, however,

I think combat for women should be voluntary. Although many nurses in previous wars sometimes found themselves in combat, I think women would serve better in functions behind the lines.

[ContraBass Black]

6. I'd rather not draft anyone.

But equal rights should probably include equal responsibility, even in this case.

[TeacherCreature]

9. When do we get the equal rights part?

I've been waiting

[antigone382]

14. Well, that's really part of the purpose of this post.

ERA failed years ago because conservatives portrayed it as this horrible idea that would result in all pregnant women being shipped to combat zones and mass orgies taking place in unisex bathrooms.

(sarcasm off)

The way I see it, if women stand up and say that they're willing to accept the responsibility of the draft in exchange for the equality of ERA, then a major argument of the opposition will be silenced.

[ContraBass Black]

47. Yes, there's some work to be done in that area as well.

Which do you think will come first?

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Yes.

While I am against the draft on principle (NO involuntary servitude!), if you are going to do it, do it to EVERYBODY! No exemptions for sex, orientation, race, religion, wealth, connections, school etc. etc.

[antigone382]

10. Yeah, I sort of feel the same way.

The draft sucks, but if you're gonna have one, include everyone.

[kiahzero]

56. You have to have exemptions for religion

Free Exercise Clause - you can't compel someone to violate their religion.

[HawkerHurricane]

60. Any exemptions allowed, and people will lie and use them.

All of a sudden, we'll have people converting to whatever we allow exemptions for.

[kiahzero]

69. Doesn't change the Constitution

You don't get to ignore the Constitution just because it makes your public policy easier to implement.

[HawkerHurricane]

75. Well, since my public policy is no draft...

since it violates the constitution (Involuntary Servatude), the point is moot.

[Shoeempress]

8. Absolutely. That way we get twice the number of outraged citizens

protesting against dumb ass wars.

[antigone382]

17. lol

Good point.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I second that

Although it seems as though, despite the current structure of the draft, that the women are voting the correct way more than the men are.

[KAZ]

11. Draft is antithetical to our country...

...that stated, yes. WE NEED THEM!

[TeacherCreature]

12. yes..........even though the idea that women HAVE equal rights is

ludicrous.

[KAZ]

15. So true. Thought we've would have been so much further...

... by now. It's moving, slowly, but moving. With 52% of the population, there is no stopping.

[DrWeird]

13. How's about...

Should men not have to get drafted, like women?

[Generator]

16. No

Since men have fucked up the world, let them be the ones to fight for it. They can have it.

[antigone382]

19. Well, I don't know about giving men the world

Women should have a 50% ownership of it, even if it is f*cked up. It's better than nothing.

[Lost147]

62. Women should go none combat.

Women should be given none combat jobs when drafted because it might cause a distraction on the battle field for the male soldiers.

[ContraBass Black]

48. I haven't fucked up anything!

[kiahzero]

57. Collective guilt is a bigotted idea

Collective guilt was used to further anti-Semitism, misogyny, and is currently being used to push anti-Islamic sentiments.

Perhaps you should think long and hard before you endorse an argument that is rooted in bigotry and intolerance?

[Baltimoreboy]

80. Does that mean you sacrifice voting as well?

[Tardisian]

18. Yes.

And put that into the ERA; maybe this time it would get passed.

[Pithlet]

81. I would think it would be just the opposite

But it doesn't look like it will pass any time soon, anyway.

[never_get_over_it]

20. Nope

not until they put us in the Constitution....and for the record not wanting to draft women and unisex restrooms were the scare tactics "they" used for not ratifying the ERA - the real reason was the freaks in the south were and are sexist mysonginist pigs.

No no really I'm not bitter about the ERA not being ratified...I worked my ass off to get it done.

Actually it would be the height of irony if "they" do draft women when they did use it as a scare tactic to not ratify the ERA....it might be a good idea after all because it would piss off so many people.

But actually I'm opposed to the draft for anyone.

[antigone382]

23. Thank you for your efforts.

We'll get ERA in there one day, even if it takes me my whole life.

Originally from Georgia and now living in Tennessee, I have to say that while there still are a lot of very backwards attitudes against women down here, it has certainly improved, even in my little lifetime of 20 years. The wierd thing though: the men I've encountered here in the backwoods of Tennessee have been much more respectful of the opinions and concerns of women than they were in metro-Atlanta. Men here actually view women as people worth having conversations with.

[never_get_over_it]

41. Good to hear

and I know it isn't everyone in the South - hell I live in VA and soon will be moving to FL - but you know when you look at a map of the ratified states and the unratified states - I think all of the Southern states were not ratified - but I can't remember exactly - the map probably looks like the blue states and the red saates - lol

And you young lady keep up the fight for those who went before you and for those to come after you - too many young women take way too much for granted!!!

[never_get_over_it]

42. Good to hear

and I know it isn't everyone in the South - hell I live in VA and soon will be moving to FL - but you know when you look at a map of the ratified states and the unratified states - I think all of the Southern states were not ratified - but I can't remember exactly - the map probably looks like the blue states and the red saates - lol

And you young lady keep up the fight for those who went before you and for those to come after you - too many young women take way too much for granted!!!

[niceperson]

21. I'm against drafting period

But women who volunteer should be given active combat

[Warpy]

22. Drafting women during their prime childbearing and childrearing years

is stupid for the women, stupid for their children, stupid for the military, and stupid for the country.

Sorry, folks, but there it is. While women bear the entire burden of producing the next generation, it's insane to add an additional burden of mandatory military service on top of it.

Add to that the fact that the greatest danger a female soldier faces within a war zone or in a peacetime unit is rape by her fellow male soldiers. Do you want that for your daughters? Really?

Until men start having the babies, I think equality of other burdens is going to have to wait. In any case, I can't see that a draft of anyone would be beneficial. We worked hard to get a volunteer military, and giving it up because an idiot has lied this country into two unwinnable wars is not the right course. After all, he'd probably have invaded Iran right now if there were a draft and he had a ready supply of unwilling working class kids to send off to die.

[antigone382]

30. You bring up a lot of interesting points.

Childbearing and motherhood is yet another aspect of a very complex issue, one that I was going to bring up myself.

Pregnant and nursing women should absolutely not be drafted, IMHO, but I do have to ask why the father is deemed expendable to a child's development, while the mother is not. Society still puts most of the responsibility of raising the child on the mother, but that's changing; there are more and more fathers that take the prime responsibility of raising the child, some staying at home while the mothers work (I know this is rare, but it does happen).

As a woman at the prime drafting age, the possibility of rape does frighten me. However, I feel for all the women who have volunteered for the military and face that risk right now. I think that rather than try to minimize the role of women in the military, we should strengthen punishments for soldiers who do take advantage of their female counterparts, and find a way to provide more safeguards for the women already in the military. The military also needs to face incredible public pressure to stop ignoring and silencing women who are raped and speak out against it.

[Warpy]

37. When the world is filled with nurturing men

and the military takes abuse of women seriously, perhaps we might open the ranks even more by encouraging more women to sign up. However, no matter how nurturing the men, the idea of a draft affecting both sexes would only pull both parents into the military and away from the children, instead of just one.

Men don't bear children or nurse them. Even though they may be exemplary fathers, and nobody is minimizing that, they are incapable of bearing that particular biological burden. Putting the double burden on women makes no sense at all.

After all, women in wartime have never been shy about volunteering in whatever capacity they can on the home front or abroad, from taking over necessary jobs to supply the military to joining the militay itself to providing security within cities and towns.

Without an attack on our shores by a national power, there is no reason for a draft. Again, the lack of one may be what is curtailing the present tinpot emperor's ambitions regarding Syria and Iran.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Early 20's aren't exactly prime childbearing years

I could be mistaken but don't most women have children in their late 20's-30's.

[wickerwoman]

54. It's 2004 A.D. not B.C.

The world is overpopulated anyway. The U.S. population isn't going to disappear because a percentage of 18-25 year old women spend some time in the military.

And one of the reasons female service members are at risk of rape is because there are few of them and they are isolated. If there were more, they could seek protection in numbers. And if there were more female officers, the male grunts would have to take the harrassment orders more seriously.

But the point is somewhat moot, as I don't believe in the draft for anybody.

[Nimrod]

24. Yes, with a caveat

This is probably going to sound sexist, but I certainly DON'T mean it that way. There must be no (and I mean NO) differences in male or female training or requirements, NO quotas of women who must graduate boot camp, and NO reduced qualifications for women graduates. Women can (of course) do anything a man can do, but there are physical differences between the genders that would affect many things.

If a woman can hip-fire a heavy calibre weapon like Rambo, then by all means get her out there and let her rock and roll. But if another woman lacks the upper body strength to reliably throw a grenade to a safe range she must NOT be allowed to squeak through boot camp just so the millitary won't be "sexist".

[antigone382]

31. I totally agree with you there

I personally think that maintaining strict standards regardless of sex is the opposite of sexism.

[Nimrod]

59. Nice!

You summed up in one line a concept that seems impossible for many people to grasp. Well done. :)

[B Calm]

25. I was victim of the draft in 1969

It wasn't right then, and sure as hell not right now!

[CHIMO]

27. Who Do You Think

Kept the wheels of industry turning in WWII?
Someone has to do it and mens' jobs were done by women. In a prolonged engagement with equal sexes in the military...well it make make Rummy scared.

[proud patriot]

28. As a woman I say YES !

[TexasSissy]

29. I've been a feminist since the '60s, but I say no to this one.

There is a difference between the nature of women and men (having to do with hormones and the way children are raised in America).

Women are totally capable, and in some cases better, than men at performing military tasks. They should definitely be allowed into the military. But they should not be drafted into it because it goes against the nature of SOME (most?) American women.

First, testosterone is one thing that makes men particularly suited to be warriors. Men have lots of it. Women have little of it. Testosterone gives a body more muscle, but even more importantly, it adds to the go-for-the-jugular instinct and to aggressiveness. I've read studies and seen documentaries on this. Male chimps (no pun intended), normally VERY aggressive, were given female hormones, and lo and behold, they became much less aggressive.

There are desk jobs in the military, so I suppose women could be drafted for that. But I wonder if that's fair, or if it's even allowed? I don't know.

Second, women and men are raised differently in our country. From birth, females and males are treated VERY differently. The sensitive, nurturing, more passive aspects of females are encouraged, while the more masculine traits are discouraged in females. And vice versa for males. By the time we all reach 18, we have been spent our entire lives being trained to be one way or the other. Now, there are exceptions to this....and for those exceptions, those women should be allowed to join (in fact, our country very much needs men AND women who feel they are up to the challenge of being in the military). But I've read studies indicating that female babies are picked up more often, and picked up more often when they cry, than male babies are (Ever wonder why men don't cry much? They learned early on it doesn't get them anywhere.) Female babies are cuddled more, kissed more, played more gently with, than are male babies. Male children are discouraged from showing emotion and encouraged more than females to be more aggressive and to fight back.

I know this will go against the grain in this forum, but this is what I think, even though I am a feminist. It is no accident that most violent crimes are committed by men. It is no accident that road rage violence is almost virtually ONLY done by men.

Being female is no disadvantage in the boardroom, however. Although men think going for the jugular, etc., is necessary, females get the job done in a different way is all. And some would say they get it done in a better way.

Let me make one final point clear, though, since I'm sure some won't understand this fine point: ALL women are not raised the way I stated; all women are not by nature more passive and gentle than men. For those exceptions to the rule, they should be allowed into the military. We need them. But drafting them into a military situation would I think be too much for many women (psychologically speaking), not because they are "weak," but because they (we) weren't raised that way. But like I said....desk jobs and the like might be a possibility; I just don't know if it's fair to draft someone and then give her a particular job that lets her escape danger. Is it fair? Don't know.

Finally, if we draft BOTH men and women...who would be left at home? There would be so many exemptions, I think, that it would be a pointless endeavor.

Still, I'll read the other posts and see what others say. I'm a strong feminist, and have been since the age of 15. I have been succeeded in a job by a male, who was automatically paid more than I was. But I think military service is a little different.

[antigone382]

34. There are differences between women and men

But I don't know that it justifies putting the entire burden of defending our country on them.

There are a lot of positions besides desk jobs that women could fill, without necessarily having to face heavy combat. Medical, mechanical, food preparation, etc. And I also have to say that the majority of women I know perform well under pressure, even life-threatening pressure. I come from a family of women who would be a very frighting force if sent into Afghanistan or Iraq ;)

Also, if women are drafted along with men, hopefully less people will need to be drafted, so more of both genders can stay at home. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

Anyway, thanks for a well-written post, and for fighting so long for the freedoms I can enjoy today as a woman. :)

[sendero]

32. You either believe in equal rights...

... or you do not.

I believe in equal rights but I will never believe that men and women are the same (ok, beyond the obvious).

I believe that a draft should cover both men and women equally. However, that does not mean that women and men should have the same jobs in equal proportion. Men are better at some things, women at others, and their roles, even in the military, should take that into consideration.

I have no doubt that many women make fine soldiers, but IMHO a drafted woman should be able to opt out of combat or certain other jobs they might be phyiscally unsuited for, such as tank mechanic :)

[IA_Seth]

36. Me, personally...

I don't think I could handle the thought of my neice, my sister, or my fiance being drafted. I think it would drive me insane. I guess when I think about it I wouldn't want any male loved ones to be drafted either, but it isnt the same.

I would gladly serve in their place.

I am NOT chauvinistic. I DO hold doors for ladies, I do let women off the elevator first, I DO pull out chairs.

I guess there is a difference between chivalry and chauvenism to me, and in my world-view I just don't think its right.

-on edit: I have to add more. I think women can do ANYTHING a man can do, and most likely with more compassion and less of the "macho" attitude that often times ruins men's good works. I respect women and by no way am I saying that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to go....just not drafted. I don't know, maybe I am loco.

[Crowdance]

38. When military rapes are prosecuted and abortion rights restored

THEN we can talk about women and the draft. Women are victims of their own countrymen until these things are addressed. We can't expose women to these additional dangers. The draft cannot include women.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Yes, I do

They should have to suffer the consequences of war just as we do. Whether they should serve in combat or not, I don't think I am educated on the subject enough to comment on.

[Mel]

40. Not until E.R.A. is passed

will I ever approve of women being drafted. Women do not have their equal rights under the constitution. Gains that women have made can be taken away by legislation from the reactionary right that now controls the congress, if Bush gets another 4 years he will select the judges and then we are all screwed!

No way, no how, are a majority of white guys going to draft women! I've seen how my African American brothers died from the American Revolution up until the Civil Rights Act was passed in wars fighting for freedoms. I saw how African Americans where treated they died for this country in wars for their and our freedom and got treated like crap!

Screw that noise give women equal rights under the United States Constitution and then we can talk about drafting women! The same right-wingers used not passing ERA against women saying women could be drafted. Well guess what no ERA No right-winger voting for drafting women, period! They swung that edge of the sword first and I say we pick it up and swing what's a double edged sword right back on em' if they try to pass a draft on women!

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

WHY WE NEED THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
by Roberta W. Francis
Chair, ERA Task Force
National Council of Women's Organizations

<snip>Would anyone really want to turn back the clock on women’s advancement? Ask the members of Congress who have tried to cripple Title IX, which requires equal opportunity in education – who have opposed the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pensions Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act – who voted to pay for Viagra for servicemen but oppose funding for family planning and contraception – who for over a decade have blocked U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).</snip>

[antigone382]

44. Great link

There was a lot of stuff there I didn't know about. I'll definitely save it.

[kiahzero]

58. Actually, women are protected under the Equal Protection Clause

All the ERA did, if I recall correctly, was change the level of scrutiny a law would have to rise to in order to be constitutional.

[Mel]

61. So was *Bush protected under the Equal Protection Clause

Bush vs. Gore 2000 Rehnquist Court that has been hostile to voting rights and equal protection had to look to the Warren court to support it's ruling in favor of *Bush.:wtf:

Successful plaintiffs in equal protection cases over the last 25 years have almost all been white men. Women don't have the full protection under the constitution that men hold period! :mad:

Did you read the link I posted?
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

<snip>It is necessary to have specific language in the Constitution affirming the principle of equal rights on the basis of sex because for more than two centuries, women have had to fight long and hard political battles to win rights that men possessed automatically because they were male. The first – and still the only – right that the Constitution specifically affirms equally for women and men is the right to vote. Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 to expand that affirmation to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.



It was not until as recently as 1971 that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause was first applied to sex discrimination. Even today, a major distinction between the sexes is present from the moment of birth – the different legal standing of males and females with respect to how their constitutional rights are obtained. As demonstrated in 1996 by the last major Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination, regarding admission of women to Virginia Military Institute (VMI), we have not moved beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove that differential assumption by affirming that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex."</snip>

<snip>
IN SUMMARY:



We need the ERA because we do not have it yet! Even in the 21st century, the U.S. Constitution still does not explicitly guarantee that all of the rights it protects are held equally by all citizens without regard to sex. The first – and still the only – right that the Constitution specifically affirms as equal for women and men is the right to vote.



We need the ERA because the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way that the Equal Rights Amendment would. The 14th Amendment has been applied to sex discrimination only since 1971, and the Supreme Court's latest decision on that issue, regarding admission of women to Virginia Military Institute, does not move us beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them.



We need the ERA because until we have it, women will have to continue to fight long, expensive, and difficult political and judicial battles to ensure that their rights are constitutionally equal to the rights automatically granted to males on the basis of sex. And in a few cases, men will have to do the same to ensure that they have equal rights with females (usually in areas of family law).



We need the ERA because we need its protection against a rollback of the significant advances in women's rights over the past 50 years. Congress has the power to replace existing laws by a majority vote, and even judicial precedents can be eroded or ignored by reactionary courts responding to a conservative political agenda. With an ERA in place, progress already made in eliminating sex discrimination would be much harder to reverse.



We need the ERA because we need a clearer and stricter federal judicial standard for deciding cases of sex discrimination. Lower-court decisions in the various circuits and states (some with state ERA's and some without) still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. Sex discrimination should get the same judicial scrutiny as race discrimination.
</snip>there's more http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm



Just how many Wars will women have to die in and who will you ask to be the last woman to die before your sisters are protected equally under the Constitution?
As I said before conservatives used the idea of women being drafted to not pass ERA and that lame excuse should not be allowed to stand as it should not of stood when they first yapped it!
We have not fullfilled the dream of Alice Paul suffragist leader and ERA author and all the other brave women that fought in the suffragist movement and it's past time in the United States of America that women be recognized Equally under the constitution.
Women have given their blood, sweat, and tears for this we owe it to them and ourselves to not let the congress pass a draft for women until the ERA is added to the US Constitution, that's my stand!


Now look at who and their reasons as to why ERA shouldn't pass, I don't think so!

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm
<snip>Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly,right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.</snip>

[antigone382]

76. Abortion rights and homosexual marriage

"abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld."

I've actually been meaning to do a post considering whether ERA would make homosexual marriage a Constitutional right, and now I know.

One more reason to get it in there, baby!

Since Bush first proposed a Constitutional ban on homosexual marriage, I've been thinking (and saying out loud) that all but the most extremely fundamentalist women should be far more concerned with getting ERA in the Constitution than with the "defense of marriage" (read: the unfair discrimination indoctrinated by small minds).

[WMliberal]

84. well, Phyllis Schlafly is almost dead.

ERA will have a better chance of support within the GOP leadership when she finally keels over.

[kodi]

43. yes.

i dont see anything that will help the cause of women's rights in america more than a draft which includes 18-20 year old females.

[quaker bill]

45. No one should be drafted

It is just that simple. Wars that are not sufficiently popular and essential to generate the necessary volunteers, should not be fought.

[Dems Will Win]

46. As John Kerry said, catching the terrorists is mainly a law enforcement

and Special Ops. You don't need a draft UNLESS you want to steal all the Iraq oil money for yourself (as Bush is doing right now) or invade more countries (which Bush is planning for term two)

With his No-Draft/Stronger Military Plan, Kerry will not have to resort to conscription, even after Bush has made such a mess of it in Iraq. Kerry has also pledged that he will push renewable energy development and true energy independence, “so that we never again have soldiers dying for oil”.

Kerry has criticized the inequality of the draft, that the poor and minorities are inducted in higher numbers than their fair share and that the draft is a source of conflict. John Kerry will not reinstate the draft—outside of the invasion of the United States by China or something like that.

The choice is thus clear to all voters. Vote for Bush and you are also voting for the resumption of the draft—to man his hidden agenda of invading more countries and staying in Iraq forever.

Or vote for Kerry and you are voting PNAC out of the White House, and with it Bush’s hidden agenda to bring back the draft so U.S. companies can dominate the world’s remaining oil supply.

Finally, a draft is morally reprehensible, an infringement of freedom against the principles of the Constitution. We know that Bush cares nothing about morality when it comes to Iraq and that Kerry has over the years always expressed real opposition to the draft for a number of moral and ethical reasons. Having lived through the Vietnam era, Kerry knows well the long history of conflict and opposition that the draft has wrought.

John Kerry will not reinstate the draft, but Bush is secretly gearing up the whole system right now for the summer of next year.

Moral opposition to conscription goes all the way back to the year 1814. In a response to a proposed draft to fight the British, Daniel Webster perhaps said it best:

“Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.

"The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"

NO ONE SHOULD BE DRAFTED, ESPECIALLY THOSE STILL DEPRIVED OF THEIR FULL RIGHTS SUCH AS WOMEN.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. Russian women saw front line combat in both World Wars

In World War I, Kerensky decided to form an all-female unit, largely made up of war widows wanting revenge against the Germans. He appointed Maria Bochkareva to gather volunteers for what came to be known as the "Women's Death Battalion". From about 2000 original volunteers, they suffered about 90% casualties and only 250 remained towards the end of Russia's involvement in the war. It's said that the women's infantry battalion fighting in the trenches alongside male units would rise up and charge the enemy and show tremendous courage, trying to shame the reluctant men into advancing themselves. It was the remnants of the "Women's Death Battalion" that defended the Winter Palace against the Bolsheviks. In World War II, Russian women again saw heavy combat. A unit of female pilots called the 588th Women's Fighter Regiment participated in over 500 night bombing raids against German positions. There was also the 586th Women's Fighter Regiment that fought in dog fights against the German Luftwaffe.

[Pobeka]

50. To the extent that women vote for war mongering politicians...

Then yes, they should bear the risk of wounds/death incurred when those politicians decide war is justly or unjustly necessary.

I realize all women didn't vote for Bush, but neither did all men.

[jpgray]

51. Yes--we already pay them less than men, so the war will be cheaper

:D

Sorry, bad joke. I don't care who gets in, so long as they meet whatever physical / mental requirements.

[goforit]

52. No!!!!...........Not after the policy of Abu Gharib.

[JohnLocke]

53. Nobody should be drafted (nt).

[Bogus W Potus]

55. Of course

Women are just of capable of fighting as men. It shouldn't be a choice.

I am opposed to a draft, but if there was a draft, men should be drafted as well as men. We're all Americans.

[mainer]

63. As a mother of sons, I say: Yes.

Why should only MY children be subjected to the risks of a stupid war?

[Carolina]

64. I totally agree

for the same reason. As a mother of a draft age son and because of all these stepford daughters I see, I say send the little pretties to the seat of ugliness known as war too. Then maybe they will wake up from their Brittany Bimbo fog!

[lukasahero]

65. From another woman - absolutely. However

I'm rather conflicted about the draft. Having two nephews nearing draft age, I'd rather kidnap them and run away than see them drafted. But I also believe the draft is one way of making rich, white, non-military men from starting wars for greed. If there was a possibility of it being their sons and perhaps their daughters dying on a bloody field somewhere, maybe they would think twice. Then again, maybe not.

[onebigbadwulf]

66. Yes. I love Thom Hartmann's idea

Make EVERYONE do service for a year after they graduate highschool or when they hit 18. Whichever happens last. They can choose military service or volunteer services (like the peace corpes).

It's a brilliant idea.

[RichardRay]

67. Absolutely, for a couple of practical reasons

1) When women are drafted then women will resist the idea as adamantly as men. Until then women's resistance to the idea of a draft is similar to men's support for reproductive rights.

2) Several posters have reasoned for a difference in behavior between men and women - it seems to me that having more people with the behaviors suggested as more likely for women would make a military a better place, not a worse one. A female combat commander with kids of her own might make different choices than a male would. Better? I don't know, but probably different.

3) When women are required to serve in the military then more women may come to see the ERA as a really good idea. I don't know about this one since, a) I'm male, and, b) I've always supported the ERA, even in the face of objections from female friends and relatives.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Surf Cowboy]

68. Of course.

First, that's what equal rights are all about: equal rights and equal responsibilities. Second, it might make a few of these jackass chickenhawk neocons think twice about sending America's daughters as well as sons into harms way based upon "faulty intelligence." 900 women get killed in some bullshit war, and we'll pack our shit to come home.

[Fovea]

70. Yes,

Equal need for defense mean equal use of human resources.

[qwlauren35]

71. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However...

I think there are some women (and some men), who are not going to be able to handle the stress of combat. And I think this needs to be rigorously assessed, and people need to be moved into the areas where they can do the most good. Having people in the military who can't cope is bad for morale.

And if it gets too bad, then troops will start shooting their own.

It's absolutely critical that armed forces personnel be capable, no matter their sex.

I have never lived through a draft. But I remember hearing about ways to get out. Like "4F". I actually like the new Draft bill that has NO exemptions. You simply get shuffled to wherever you can do some good.

So, there it is. Courageous women need to be drafted. Women who cower and cry... and can't be WHIPPED into shape during basic training, need to be moved into "safe" positions that don't jeopardize missions. However, they should not be allowed to bow out of service.

[Mari333]

72. Yes. But no one should be drafted, period. n/t

[Misinformed01]

73. Absolutely

nt

[DFLer4edu]

74. Equal rights=equal responsibilities!

[TankLV]

77. Absolutely.

Equal rights = equal responsibility.

[Iris]

78. Yep. Just not for combat.

Which would could cause 2 possiblities:


More young men killed because women are doing the noncombat jobs.

or

Fewer young men drafted because women are doing the noncombat jobs.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

83. when women make up half the government

and can truly influence the decisions that lead to conflicts, well then yes.

Susan
USAF veteran