Polling: Women want equal Access, but not equal Responsibilty.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

What would be much more useful is seeing what numbers of women don't want ANYONE to be drafted.

Men are already living with this crappy situation and many are still living who have personally had their lives negatively impacted by it. Like most people in crappy situations, they want others to understand their misery by sharing it. This is a pretty common human phenomenon.

Women don't live with that crappy situation. As a woman who doesn't live with that crappy situation, I think the solution is to not have anyone forced to register with the draft and get killed against their will, at all, ever, male or female. My situation is better, in this particular regard. Why shouldn't everyone live under the better situation?

So, no, I don't think women should be drafted. Neither should men. I want to expand my good situation, not expand their bad one.

And as soon as I see the numbers for women who don't think ANYONE should be drafted, then we can talk about whether women want rights without responsibility. Because I struggle to think of any women I've ever known who disagree with me. That is not "rights without responsibility." That is wanting everyone to have a more free life.

ETA: Oh, wait, read the article.

I was right. And you conveniently left that out of your OP.



Almost 80% of women oppose the draft completely.

So, no, woman do not want rights without responsibility. They want everyone to be more free, including men (and so do 65% of men).

Way to spin-doctor your own source, as usual.

Click to expand...

36% of men, and 21% of women are correct.... as ****ty as it is , a country should have a draft provision for dire times

Thrilla said:

36% of men, and 21% of women are correct.... as ****ty as it is , a country should have a draft provision for dire times

Click to expand...

...Which are practically always caused by the government simply using people as cannon fodder for completely selfish reasons that don't benefit their citizenry at all.

And they display their selfishness clearly. The military complained about the economic recovery because people being better off meant they had fewer desperate people to prey upon who were willing to fight unjust wars out of lack of other options.

No, they shouldn't have the power to do that. Maybe if few enough people register for their wars of imperialism, they'll get the message. And besides that, limiting bodies limits the damage wars can do.

On the very rare occasion that we wind up in wars that are necessary and worth fighting, Americans have come out by the millions to register, even if their number didn't come up. But that only happens once every few hundred years at most.

America almost never gets into wars because of "dire times." Usually, it gets into wars to serve the private monetary interests of a few powerful people.

A government which serves the people has no right to treat the lives of its citizens as expendable like that.

A government based on freedom has no right to basically decide to execute millions of citizens against their will, and usually for absolutely no good reason.

Thrilla said:

I don't want to see any of my kids drafted ( 5 of my 6 kids have served , or are serving... the last will be serving soon).... but if a draft is called, there's no good reason to discriminate based entirely on gender.

there are vital roles female draftees can fulfill without being confronted with direct combat..... as over 90% of the military is involved in support roles, there's plenty of things that need to be done other than grabbing a rifle and going off to face the enemy.

as an aside, your idea of "chivalry" was killed off by feminism ... women are equals, regardless of ones idea of chivalry

Click to expand...

Volunteerism strikes me as quite a bit different than inductance.

The content of the article seems to allude to drafting women into active combat.

As far as drafting to non-combat rolls, that strikes me as a better alternative, but I'm still not crazy about it. I'm against the draft in general, not just for women, but it strikes me as even more egregious when drafting women.

If I enlisted, I think I'd want the guy next to me, the guy that's get my back, wanting to be there as much as I; not there because he was forced against his will, and can't wait to get out.

But I suppose if at war and soldiers are needed, it might have to be done. But I'd much prefer if the pay and benefit package were such that we could meet the requirements with all volunteers.

But back to drafting young women: How would this be handled with pregnancies & children, both at home and while in the service?

Chomsky said:

This poll leads me to believe if the draft is ever brought back during active combat, there's going to be a spate of pregnancies rivaling the number of young men rushing off to college during the sixties! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

We had women that got pregnant during our deployment to come home early. It was actually in our general orders that a woman was not allowed to get pregnant. Several received punishment under the UCMJ. If a woman isn't pregnant when she receives her draft notice and then becomes pregnant they should treat it the same as if she had shot herself in the foot to avoid the draft.

Chomsky said:

Yes, I agree, including the bolded.

But I find it hard to believe we don't have enough able-bodied men of sound mind and good attitude, that we have to resort to drafting women.

And we need to think this through! What about when they become POWs? As terrible as men can be treated, do we really want to think about how women will be treated by men of different cultures and values than us? On the battlefield? Marone!

No freakin' way. I'm dead set against this. And I know there's no way my father and uncles would've accepted this, nor any of the older guys I knew in the neighborhood. I feel like a dinosaur here. But this just doesn't sit well with me.

Click to expand...

I am against it also. If they want to change it vote for a president that doesn't push stupidity like this. This is directly on Obama. It was his choice to go down this road rather than listen to the Chiefs of Staff.

Lursa said:

See? Women cant 'win.' They are hypocritical if they honestly see reasons why it's not a great idea--OR--that they personally dont want to go BUT then are also criticized as 'not war material' or a 'handicap' for the fighting men.

Click to expand...

The best soldier I had work for me in my entire career was a woman. That said, I don't think women should be in combat positions. A few women pushed for it in spite of vigorous studies that proved that it was not a good idea. Obama wanted to push his agenda anyway. He wanted it, he got it, he owns it. Hillary would back it also. It is part of fighting the war against women.

Beaudreaux said:

Imagine that - they want equality in the military for women as long as there's no expectation of them having to actually do anything in return, like register with Selective Service to ante up their lives if a draft is needed like EVERY young male in the nation must do. I would like to give a shout out of respect to the 38% of women that voted yes.

Click to expand...

So, I'm interested in your response. What should our politicians do, and who would you suggest leads the action?

jet57 said:

So, I'm interested in your response. What should our politicians do, and who would you suggest leads the action?

Click to expand...

Sure. I feel that if women are eligible to be part of all combat related military roles, there is no reason to exclude them from Selective Service registration. Given that, I feel that Congress should amend the law to add young women to be held to the same Selective Service registration requirements as young men. As for who should lead the action, it would seem that the Generals have already taken the lead, which is their responsibility, given the fact that this is the logical extension of them following the orders of the Obama Administration to open all combat roles to women. It's a full circle.

Beaudreaux said:

Sure. I feel that if women are eligible to be part of all combat related military roles, there is no reason to exclude them from Selective Service registration. Given that, I feel that Congress should amend the law to add young women to be held to the same Selective Service registration requirements as young men. As for who should lead the action, it would seem that the Generals have already taken the lead, which is their responsibility, given the fact that this is the logical extension of them following the orders of the Obama Administration to open all combat roles to women. It's a full circle.

Click to expand...

But which politicians should lead congress in that action?

jet57 said:

But which politicians should lead congress in that action?

Click to expand...

Not sure it really matters, but to give you some sort of an answer - Maybe the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Defense Committees which would make it bipartisan.

NonoBadDog said:

We had women that got pregnant during our deployment to come home early. It was actually in our general orders that a woman was not allowed to get pregnant. Several received punishment under the UCMJ. If a woman isn't pregnant when she receives her draft notice and then becomes pregnant they should treat it the same as if she had shot herself in the foot to avoid the draft.

Click to expand...

There's problems with saying a woman should be punished for getting pregnant though. What if she's Catholic and doesn't believe in birth control and believes she should have as many children as possible? Are you going to do a pregnancy test as soon as she gets drafted? What if she got pregnant right before that and it doesn't show on the test (definitely possible)?

Pregnancy is not like getting shot in the foot, because it serves a purpose and can be a religious necessity for certain people.

roguenuke said:

There's problems with saying a woman should be punished for getting pregnant though. What if she's Catholic and doesn't believe in birth control and believes she should have as many children as possible? Are you going to do a pregnancy test as soon as she gets drafted? What if she got pregnant right before that and it doesn't show on the test (definitely possible)?

Pregnancy is not like getting shot in the foot, because it serves a purpose and can be a religious necessity for certain people.

Click to expand...

Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. It is an intentional act.

NonoBadDog said:

Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. It is an intentional act.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. The act that leads to pregnancy is intentional most of the time but then we don't punish someone for getting an STI. And there are plenty of religions that stress "be fruitful and multiply" or something similar as part of their religious tenets.

NonoBadDog said:

We had women that got pregnant during our deployment to come home early. It was actually in our general orders that a woman was not allowed to get pregnant. Several received punishment under the UCMJ. If a woman isn't pregnant when she receives her draft notice and then becomes pregnant they should treat it the same as if she had shot herself in the foot to avoid the draft.

Click to expand...

I almost agreed with that, except that in reality, it means that men can still have sex and women cannot, because no birth control methods are 100%. Sex is a vital part of many people's emotional health and welfare, like recreation or entertainment or decent food or other stress-relieving things.

I mean, many of these people would already be married....and you'd in effect be telling a woman she could no longer have sex from the time she received the notice being called up until shipping out. And any time on leave with husband.

roguenuke said:

No it isn't. The act that leads to pregnancy is intentional most of the time but then we don't punish someone for getting an STI. And there are plenty of religions that stress "be fruitful and multiply" or something similar as part of their religious tenets.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

I almost agreed with that, except that in reality, it means that men can still have sex and women cannot, because no birth control methods are 100%. Sex is a vital part of many people's emotional health and welfare, like recreation or entertainment or decent food or other stress-relieving things.

I mean, many of these people would already be married....and you'd in effect be telling a woman she could no longer have sex from the time she received the notice being called up until shipping out. And any time on leave with husband.

Click to expand...

Equal rights are either equal or they aren't. I didn't vote for the guy that pushed the "equal" in combat MOSs thing but since it is going to be "equal" it should be "equal". I don't think it is fair or equal that women should be in combat jobs but have a tool at their disposal to use whenever they want to avoid deploying with no consequence. They can use birth control, condom, IUD, pull out or don't have sex. That isn't the government's problem. When someone leaves the unit in a war zone someone has to pick up their slack. If a woman were to get pregnant after being notified that she was being drafted someone else would have to go in her place.

This thread is actually pretty ironic. Men that support men in combat regularly don't support men having to sign up for the draft, so claiming women are somehow out of line for supporting women in combat and at the same time not supporting women having to sign up for the draft seems pretty ironic to me.

NonoBadDog said:

Equal rights are either equal or they aren't. I didn't vote for the guy that pushed the "equal" in combat MOSs thing but since it is going to be "equal" it should be "equal". I don't think it is fair or equal that women should be in combat jobs but have a tool at their disposal to use whenever they want to avoid deploying with no consequence. They can use birth control, condom, IUD, pull out or don't have sex. That isn't the government's problem. When someone leaves the unit in a war zone someone has to pick up their slack. If a woman were to get pregnant after being notified that she was being drafted someone else would have to go in her place.

Click to expand...

As with abortion and father's rights, for example, biology trumps equality. The biology cannot be changed and certain basic rights (like forcing someone to remain pregnant or killing a man who's girlfriend dies in childbirth..to 'make it equal', or forcing couples to not have sex after a woman is called up for the draft) are not likely to be violated.

It's not fair. No one said it was fair. Biology doesnt have the concept of 'fair.'

NonoBadDog said:

Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. It is an intentional act.

Click to expand...

I'll have to tell my folks and my sister that one.

That was the dumbest thing I've read today.

Lursa said:

As with abortion and father's rights, for example, biology trumps equality. The biology cannot be changed and certain basic rights (like forcing someone to remain pregnant or killing a man who's girlfriend dies in childbirth..to 'make it equal', or forcing couples to not have sex after a woman is called up for the draft) are not likely to be violated.

It's not fair. No one said it was fair. Biology doesnt have the concept of 'fair.'

Click to expand...

So it ISN'T about equality. It is about fairness but only for females. If a person is being deployed and gets pregnant you think it is fair to let them stay stateside and send another person into a war in their place so the female can have a baby because she got pregnant. What about that other person? What is fair for them?

Fiddytree said:

I'll have to tell my folks and my sister that one.

That was the dumbest thing I've read today.

Click to expand...

My son has four kids. One day I asked him, "Do you know what causes kids?" He said, "What?" I said, "Didn't think so."

SmokeAndMirrors said:

...Which are practically always caused by the government simply using people as cannon fodder for completely selfish reasons that don't benefit their citizenry at all.

And they display their selfishness clearly. The military complained about the economic recovery because people being better off meant they had fewer desperate people to prey upon who were willing to fight unjust wars out of lack of other options.

No, they shouldn't have the power to do that. Maybe if few enough people register for their wars of imperialism, they'll get the message. And besides that, limiting bodies limits the damage wars can do.

On the very rare occasion that we wind up in wars that are necessary and worth fighting, Americans have come out by the millions to register, even if their number didn't come up. But that only happens once every few hundred years at most.

America almost never gets into wars because of "dire times." Usually, it gets into wars to serve the private monetary interests of a few powerful people.

A government which serves the people has no right to treat the lives of its citizens as expendable like that.

A government based on freedom has no right to basically decide to execute millions of citizens against their will, and usually for absolutely no good reason.

Click to expand...

your political opinions aside, a provision for a draft is quite necessary for a country ( especially when your the top superpower, or among the top powers)... the utilization of a draft, however, is something that must come under vigorous debate.

and no, Americans have never came out by the millions to enlist...they, however, were drafted by the millions....about 10 million in WW2 alone.
(the draft, in 940, was supported by over 70% of the nation at that time.. registration for hte draft was mandatory still)
it's a simple fact that the draft was necessary then because there was not enough volunteers to fill the roles the military needed filled... the same was true for Korea and Vietnam.

in short, when the **** hits the fan in a big way, relying on volunteers is ultimately insane.... especially now that so many Americans are opposed to serving their country in a military capacity.

Henrin said:

This thread is actually pretty ironic. Men that support men in combat regularly don't support men having to sign up for the draft, so claiming women are somehow out of line for supporting women in combat and at the same time not supporting women having to sign up for the draft seems pretty ironic to me.

Click to expand...

I don't support women being in combat. I think the whole issue is pretty stupid but Obama made a stupid decision that put us here.

NonoBadDog said:

I don't support women being in combat. I think the whole issue is pretty stupid but Obama made a stupid decision that put us here.

Click to expand...

I don't support it either and like I said elsewhere studies show it is a bad idea. Still, both genders seem to support their own gender fighting and not being forced to register, so I don't think women can be blasted here for doing anything wrong.

Chomsky said:

Volunteerism strikes me as quite a bit different than inductance.

The content of the article seems to allude to drafting women into active combat.

As far as drafting to non-combat rolls, that strikes me as a better alternative, but I'm still not crazy about it. I'm against the draft in general, not just for women, but it strikes me as even more egregious when drafting women.

If I enlisted, I think I'd want the guy next to me, the guy that's get my back, wanting to be there as much as I; not there because he was forced against his will, and can't wait to get out.

But I suppose if at war and soldiers are needed, it might have to be done. But I'd much prefer if the pay and benefit package were such that we could meet the requirements with all volunteers.

But back to drafting young women: How would this be handled with pregnancies & children, both at home and while in the service?

Click to expand...

the draft has never meant that an individual is heading for combat.... plenty of supply clerks, cooks, and medics were drafted.
I balk at the notion that draftees are somehow a lesser soldier... I served alongside draftees in Vietnam... believe me, they didn't want to be there, but they did their job just as well as us volunteers, sometimes better.

the fact of hte matter is, we've always had enlistments available for volunteers... and in ww1, ww2, Korea, and Vietnam, there simply weren't enough volunteers to fill the roles that needed ot be filled.
think about that.. even when patriotism was very high and serving your country was something that was looked fondly upon, there still weren't enough volunteers.
I don't think anyone would believe that would magically change, especially when patriotism is so much lower now than then.. as is the idea of serving the country in a military capacity ( I enlisted when it was unpopular to serve)

as for pregnancies and children, it can be handled the same way it's handled now for enlistments...there's no need to change the rules for a draft.
enlistees , depending on a few things, are limited in the amount of dependents ( the amount changes from time to time) they can have at the time the contract is signed... and pregnancies are disqualifications for enlistment ( gotta be in solid health to join up, pregnant women have to wait)
on that same token, what if a man has children at home... should that disqualify him for the draft?... it never has, but should that be changed as well or are women special in that regards?

at the end of the day, you're proposing we discriminate based on gender... and last I checked, that's pretty much a no-no.

cpwill said:

Oh. Lookit this. Women don't want to be drafted.



Too bad, too ****ing sad, sister. You wanted equality, you got it.

Click to expand...

And so who's this 61% of men who want women drafted . . . are they also the same % of men who don't want women in the military?

This is looking more and more like just a gender spite war rather than true representation and common sense.

I support females being in the military (etc) - IF they are capable of meeting the same fitness standards that a male of similar stature would be (READ: I don't support differential treatment between genders). And that narrows the field down to less than 1% of the female population . . . and doesn't represent or cast a view on "most" women, either.

Don't point fingers at me as if others speak FOR me - because they don't (this memo should be sent to Hillary Clinton . . . who's still scrambling her noggin trying to figure out why in the **** women are Republicans and Conservatives).

But of course - I think the %'s you're harping on coincide with the %'s of people who generally oppose the concept of the draft in general (36% of men - 21% of women).

I oppose the draft in general - and would only support it if we're in a dire and extreme situation to the extent of WWI or WWII. Not some measly pathetic idiotic campaign like what Vietnam turned out to be. So do I support the draft for women? For things like Vietnam? **** no. Of course not - how stupid is that? If I don't support it for men of course I don't support it for women.