In this day and age of equality, why don't US women have to sign up for selective service system (draft)?

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Last time I checked, women are still the only humans carrying babies to term.

This is deeper than some might consider. In a prolonged war a nation needs the women to stay home and reproduce to supply the nation with future troops. Thus, it is counter intuitive to draft women. Men are the pawns that go to the front line and die and women produce the pawns with a little help from the pawns before they die.

That would be some war if it were prolonged long enough to allow for a woman to give birth and have the child grow up to become a soldier. While we have been in Afghanistan that long, it was never a war that was going to decimate (or worse) the population. Even in WWII the US lost 407K over the almost 4 years of its involvement.

blamb61 wrote:

Don't want my daughters drafted and especially don't want them or any other women in combat roles.

What about working in an office at a naval base here in the US?

joan of arc wrote:

Thoughts? Should equality extend to the draft. I know only like 1% of combat troops are women but what perecnet of troops are actually in combat in this day and age?

First, they should eliminate men and women categories from distance running - there is zero reason for them to exist.

oldsoul wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Nixon came up with the selective service as a way to try to stop opposition to the Vietnam war. The theory was that the country would not care as much about war if it was fought with an all volunteer armed forces. With that in mind, I would absolutely agree with adding women to selective service. Mainly because it would prevent the US from committing to large regional conflicts because everyone would flip out if the draft was reinstated and their daughters had to report for duty.

That's odd - I was drafted by Lyndon Johnson.

Pre-dates LBJ

oldsoul wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Nixon came up with the selective service as a way to try to stop opposition to the Vietnam war. The theory was that the country would not care as much about war if it was fought with an all volunteer armed forces. With that in mind, I would absolutely agree with adding women to selective service. Mainly because it would prevent the US from committing to large regional conflicts because everyone would flip out if the draft was reinstated and their daughters had to report for duty.

That's odd - I was drafted by Lyndon Johnson.

Yeah, everything Roy said there is completely wrong. We've had drafts at various times throughout US history, but the Selective Service system was created in 1917 during the Wilson admin prior to the US entering WWI.

Nixon amended the law to make selection random (draft lottery) to make it more fair.

Have noticed all the U.S.M.C. tv commericials? U.S.M.C. is the smallest but it is the most difficult for U.S.M.C. to meet recruiting goals thus millions of dollars spent on U.S.M.C. tv commercials. It would be a lot easier for U.S.M.C. to take top physically fit of those drafted. There will always be men on the ground. U.S.A. will never 100% rely on air power. You need to read U.S.M.C. Small Wars Manual written about 100 years ago. Not much has changed. Do not forget all the money spent on recruiting. It takes a lot of atmosphere setting to get lads to walk into a recruiters office. Regarding not reenlisting: U.S.M.C. does not want most to reenlist. U.S.M.C. counts on teenagers.

I agree

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

This is the answer you are looking for

SunRunner82 wrote:

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

This is the answer you are looking for

This is the answer he was looking for but it is it the correct answer. The correct answer is that the military and the men who run it do not want women to be drafted and serve side by side with them on the front lines. Yet, nurses serve on the front lines and have always done so going back to the civil war and earlier. So, there are some gender specific roles these men are willing to allow women to fulfill for them. Funny how that is, isn’t it?

SunRunner82 wrote:

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

This is the answer you are looking for

I think you kids are due back at r/redpill.

For me, I don't consider women to be equally vested citizens when men have to register for selective service and women do not have to register for any kind of selective service... Not even something that is non-combat.

Luv2Run wrote:

sbeefyk2 wrote:

This is deeper than some might consider. In a prolonged war a nation needs the women to stay home and reproduce to supply the nation with future troops. Thus, it is counter intuitive to draft women. Men are the pawns that go to the front line and die and women produce the pawns with a little help from the pawns before they die.

That would be some war if it were prolonged long enough to allow for a woman to give birth and have the child grow up to become a soldier. While we have been in Afghanistan that long, it was never a war that was going to decimate (or worse) the population. Even in WWII the US lost 407K over the almost 4 years of its involvement.

Well babies born when this current conflict began if you want to say 9/11 kick started it are now old enough for Military service.

Fattttty B wrote:

inthepdx wrote:

In Israel, women have to server a mandatory 2 years after they turn 18

There was a girl that worked out at my Pole Vault club that was an Israeli National and her training was halted when she was called for her required service time. Though women's service time is less than a men's, it's not by much.

If Israeli women can be "drafted" into mandatory service, US women should be draftable.

Would you want a woman in your foxhole? She would engage in the fetal position and just wilter. You really want that or a man who can take out the enemy?

Why?

Obviously you know nothing about her foxhole

SunRunner82 wrote:

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

This is the answer you are looking for

the angry virgin has spoken

Hi. I’m actually on the Selective Service Board and have been since 2011. So a few things:

1) Women don’t have to register for the draft because of the law. Unless Congress changes it, then nothing will happen. Sorry guys.

2) even if war was declared today by Congress, it would be at least 6 months before a draft is instituted, and odds are, probably longer than 6 months.

3) your local SSB is made up of civilians from various fields. There’s 5 of us, and we can serve a max of 20 years. We’d be the ones handling appeals and to some degree, we could work with alternative service.

U.S.M.C. brought women into U.S.M.C. to take all or nearly all men off of desk jobs and to make most male Marines infantrymen. Women have been showing what they can do and advancing their careers in our mostly peace time U.S. military. All this women in combat talk by women in military was started by female commissioned officers. Forty years ago, females in U.S. military had no combat jobs, enlisted or commissioned officers. Since females in U.S. military had no combat jobs, women in U.S. military had a glass ceiling, usually at O-6. That's Captain in Navy and Colonel in Air Force, Army & Marines. Female commissioned officers in U.S. military wanted to be Admirals and Generals. The reason why women will not be drafted because women are needed to be nurses and clerk typists. Female riflepersons and female machine gunners are not needed in U.S. military. I do not see millions of females needed in U.S military, so no need to draft women.

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

Rule #2 You're a d!ck.

Fogrunr wrote:

For me, I don't consider women to be equally vested citizens when men have to register for selective service and women do not have to register for any kind of selective service... Not even something that is non-combat.

Your asinine “considerations” are as inconsequential as your dating life.

LeMonde wrote:

another perspective wrote:

People either don't know this or forget this simple fact all the time. Women are only equal to Men when it benefits them. When it doesn't like in the situation of a military draft, women and men are drastically different and should be treated as such. That's un-written rule #1 in the modern feminist manual.

Rule #2 You're a d!ck.

When you can't refute someone's statement, you just hoist the white flag and call them names? Try harder, dude.