Non-Gay Political Issue// Women Registering for Selective Service

[OldGreyEagle]

As the other threads appear to be headed into a rehash of the Gay Debate, I want to start a thread on another political, through not at all scouting related topic (sorry Terry)

 

My son YoungSpikedEagle tuned 18 in June and had to register for the selective service, its as the ads say "what a man has to do". OK, its done, well it was done a long time ago. Now, I was comtemplating life and it occurs to me, why don't women have to register? Women serve in the Armed Forces, they now are in most combat situations, should not a women have to register as well as a man? Women are allowed to drive, to vote, to own real property, etc (ok, some tongue in cheek here) Is there a reason women should not register? It seems a male political candidate needs to serve in the armed forces to be consdiered worthy of office, should not the same qualification be made of a woman?

 

Do any ACLU members see this as discrimination? Why force a segment of the population to register with the government due to a criteria settled at birth? Love to get Merlyn LeRoys take on this.

 

In Summary, Is the Selective Service registration of only males unconstitutional?

 

Oh, and to get things started, I say whats sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, both sexes register or neither.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[scoutldr]

I agree, equal opportunity for all! In fact, I think an Affirmative Action program is in order, until the armed forces reflect the population as a whole...approximately 50/50. Let the draft begin! (or other suitable "public service", such as the WPA or CCC).

[scoutmom]

OGE,

I completely agree. Women serve in the armed forces right along side men, so why should they not be required to register for selective service? In many other countries around the world, military service is required for every young adult, regardless of their gender.

 

 

[Rooster7]

I think it's sad that we've become so civilized that we feel compeled to make our wives and daughters fight wars. NOT me! If that makes me a sexist pig, I'll wear that label proudly.

[Fat Old Guy]

I find it interesting that women can opt for a combat position but men have no choice. Women still have the option of getting pregnant and getting sent home. My sources in the military told me that during GW-I many women were sent home pregnant.

[dsteele]

Interesting question, OGE!

 

I have to admit that I have no opinion on this subject because I've not given it any thought.

 

If you don't mind, (and since this is nearly one-way communication, I have no way of knowing without proceeding whether you mind or not,) I'd like to use the fact that I have no opinion due to lack of consideration to again caution my fellow posters that a lot of the youth who participate in these forums are being exposed to views and personalities they have not considered until they read what we say. The Scout Oath and Law, therefore, are important to remember. My point is that this thread will help me form an opinion about women registering for selective service. What we read becomes part of what we think, for good or for ill.

 

I can say that I have no problem with women in combat -- as long as they're on my side. I wouldn't want to have one against me. I'm thinking of that "hell hath no fury" thing.

 

My wife has two black belts and is working on a third. I don't like it when she's mad at me for several reasons. I shudder to think of her in combat against some poor soul.

 

DS

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey OGE, get the equal rights amendment passed and it probably would be unconstitutional to only register males; until then, it's constitutional to register/draft only men, or only women, or both men & women. I agree with your comment that it should be both or neither, but since there's no constitutional violation (unless you can make a successful equal protection argument, or throw out the draft completely as involuntary servitude, or something), you'll have to convince congress to change the law, or change the constitution.

[OutdoorThinker]

I feel that registering for the draft is part of the responsibilty that comes with the rights that all Americans have and thus women should have to register for the draft. Today's women have endless oppertunities, they can be leaders in business, political leaders, in the Boy Scouting, and are in fact in the miliatary, why not have them drafted too? I dont find the logic in the fact that women arent drafted. I can understand why ealier in American history they were not, but women are now equal players in the country.

[Twocubdad]

I think registration should apply to both. The draft is another matter. The Selective Service has always expanded or contracted the draft using age and sometimes other factors (a shortage of doctors, for example) to meet the personnel needs at the time. I would assume gender could be thrown into the mix if the draft is ever reactivated.

 

But I have another question for KS and some of our active duty guys. Given the technology and level of specialization in the military, is it practical that the draft will ever be reactivated? Don't modern training requirement preclude the WWII model of giving a guy a rifle, 6 weeks of basic and putting them on a ship? What kind of mess would we be in that would require the draft(political considerations aside)?

[Rooster7]

To those of you that would have women (your daughters, your granddaughters, your wives, your girlfriends, etc.) fighting along your side in a war and subject to all the risks associated with the same:

 

I find it interesting that many of you seem to recognize and appreciate the differences between the sexes, at least to the extent that most of you endorse the Boy Scouts as a great organization for boys and want to keep it that way... YET, you have no issue with women in combat. I'd rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 then send my 18 year-old daughter into a war. And I mean this in the nicest way, if you'd rather send your daughter, then I say shame on you and may God have mercy on your soul. If you consider that dramatic, then I figure 1) either you don't have a daughter, or 2) you're not much of man. Sorry, I can't see this issue any other way.

[nldscout]

The reasoning behind registering Males goes back years to when what they needed was Fighters, not support soldiers. Although this would be true today, woman still cannot searve in ground combat positions in the US Army or Marines. No Infantry, Armour, Artillary. Could a Woman do these position? Certainly there are some ladis that could do them as well if not better than the average Male.

 

 

Look at the Soldiers on the News from Iraq and Afganistan, Look at the Gear they Hump every day. Yes technoligy has improved some things, But no matter The True fighters, The Infantry Man, Tanker, or Cannon Cocker's that you see face a very arduous, dirty, and nasty job. Just as bad as our fathers had in WWII or Korea, or Vietnam.

 

Twocubdad

It would be harder to implement the Draft due to technoligy requirements. I spent 25 yrs in the US Army, retiring in 1988, and now work at Fort Drum, NY supporting Todays soldiers. Technoligy has done wonders for making somethings easier, Buts its still not a job for shirkers.

[Achilleez]

I would have to agree with Rooster on this one...

 

Must we push equal rights to the absolute extreme in every case possible? Has the fear of appearing prejudiced or unfair clouded our sense of logic and reason? Equal rights aside, I just don't think that our wives and daughters should be required to register. Please do not jump to conclusions of sexism. Humans must accept the fact that women and men ARE different and that we cannot always meet at the same level on all subjects.

[Fat Old Guy]

"My wife has two black belts and is working on a third."

 

If need three belts maybe she should try suspenders. =:-o

[Fat Old Guy]

"Don't modern training requirement preclude the WWII model of giving a guy a rifle, 6 weeks of basic and putting them on a ship?"

 

That was the WW I model. As I understand WW II, at least in the Pacific, the Marines spent months training for invasions. Look at the amount of time we spent in England getting ready for the invasion of Normandy.

 

The draft served to control the flow of bodies into the service, not get them to the front quicker.

[Adrianvs]

"I'd rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 then send my 18 year-old daughter into a war. And I mean this in the nicest way, if you'd rather send your daughter, then I say shame on you and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Rooster on this one. But I don't think it has much to do with gender. I, for one, would rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 than send my hypothetical 18 year old son OR daughter into a war.

 

The constitutions of some people are more suited to war than others. I believe, however, that the differences between the two genders is significant, but not greater than the differences within either gender. In other words, there are many females more suited to war than many males. Now, I don't think that females should be required to register, but it does seem that the modern doctrine of "gender identicality" would require it. Besides, the armed forces do screen candidates to determine their ability to fight, as superficially as a few minute physical exam could. Perhaps the armed forces would find a significant number of fighting-capable females to justify the female draft. I don't know. This, of course, doesn't even take into account the numerous non-combat support roles necessary in war.

 

For what it's worth, if I did find myself at war, I would rather be fighting along side an 18 year old Jeanne D'Arc than a 40 year old Francesco D'Assisi.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)