Lately, every time I get in the car and turn on the radio I hear a commercial for the selective service informing that males must resister within 30 days of their 18th birthday or face a $250,000 fine, loss of privileges such as a drivers license, getting federal jobs or loans, and even imprisonment. Even "undocumented" and immigrant males must register.
I registered the day after I turned 18, to be put in a pool for a draft if it were ever to come. My question is: Why are females excluded from registering for the selective service?
Because the selective service drafts for combat roles that women are exempt from. Obama wants to open it up to women while McCain wants it to remain the same. Here is a link:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/91 … ctions.xml
Why take the best of what women are and place it into a combat situation? Men, especially those at the age of 18 are full of testosterone and are perfect for training to become warriors.
Woo Hoo you said it now. I am waiting for some of our females to respond to that.
Okay, I'll bite. :-)
I actually agree that men are better suited to fight and testosterone-driven young men are more easily persuaded to become warriors. However, that doesn't make it "fair" for only men to die in combat.
You're right but it's not fair for anyone to have to die in combat. However, the ones that do are volunteers. In reality these volunteers are professionals at what they do. They're not pushed through basic training and sent directly to combat. They go through basic training then specialized training and they continue to train throughout the military career.
The need for a draft is ridiculous because it would undermine the makeup of the military by replacing trained professionals that want to be in the military with individuals that do not want to be in the military. Male or female, the selective service is a waste of funding.
I used to think like you do regarding the draft. However, what I've seen is that these "professionals" you refer to are often disadvantaged young men and women with few opportunities who join the military as a way to make a living, not because it is their true calling. Someone said it earlier: war is perpetrated by the rich and fought by the poor.
What I have seen, and I was in the Army, is that yes many are disadvantaged youths with limited civilian options when they join. We didn't have our mommy's and daddy's to pay for college and the military provided an excellent opportunity to not only get first hand practical experience in just about any field of knowledge but also provide us the money to advance our education outside of the military through GI Bills and College Funds.
In a draft, I can see how your saying could be true but in reality war is not fought by the poor its fought by the proud. The military can provide a tremendous opportunity for the disadvantage as well as the troubled. It provides discipline, not by just following orders, by teaching us to focus, be selfless, find courage where there would be fear. If the media would stay out of the play by play of war then the soldiers there would never have to hear or see their morality being questioned on all levels causing them to lose focus.
But I digress, this thread is about the necessity for a selective service and the exclusion of females from it, not the necessity for a well trained volunteer military.
Let me first thank you for your service to our country and I am truly grateful you have lived through it to tell.
My beef is with the way this government has operated the last few wars or so as a sanitary operation where the disadvantaged whether for poverty or education or whatever reasons the government has used this to their advantage. The rich and snot nosed kids that are terrified of war and personal injury are allowed to live their lives devoid of the details of death and injury because of their station. Are we not ALL Americans? Why are a priveledged group allowed to live their lives unfettered by the reality of these wars? Why is it that the lives of the ones that fight these wars so easily dismissed? This is a great diservice to the youth of our country and wreaks of a class distinction that makes me sick.
I meant this in no way to demean or lessen your service and the good things you take away from your experience. It is a testament to your patriotism and character that you did that for your country.
Thank you for your sentiments. Like I stated above... war is fought by the proud and frankly, having over-privileged snots would undermine the authority of the commanders put in their charge. Can you imagine the pressures a commander would be under to mind for the safety of one individual over the rest of a unit? The military prefers the disadvantaged and the troubled. They can mold them. Rich kids have a fall back, the others only have the military and the wits the military provides for them.
This is none of my business, so you can ignore me if you want. Did you see combat? The reason I ask is that I live with someone who still has nightmares 40 years after his three tours in Viet Nam. He was career military, and he would not agree with you that the military prefers the disadvantaged and troubled.
Of course, everyone has their own point of view. However you served, it is noble and all of us should be grateful for it.
You probably read me out of context but yes those are exactly the types of individuals the volunteer military prefers. These are the types of individuals that have nothing to fall back on. They have no direction in the civilian world or were starting down the wrong direction. The military does not want individuals that believe their station in life is more important than any other. In an all volunteer military, the only people that are serving are the people that WANT to serve. The military is too broad for anyone to discuss WHY they want to serve.
As far as my experience, I've been in Hot Zones as a combat medic, but I'm not going to discuss that here. It has no relevance to the original topic of this thread.
three letters: PMS
i think women should have to man up just like the men. we are equal, are we not?
Do you suppose men and women would feel safer with women on the front line?
I was in the Navy, I lead a lot of things but I was a horrible shooter. I was pretty certain only an idiot would put me in the front line.
Not to say that there aren't women that are very good sharp shooters and can kick some male butt too but I am not equal to a man in regards to physical strength. I don't want to be treated like I am either but if a woman wants to be there to protect people, then let them do that... of course I would think these woman could kick my butt too so...
Besides if both men and woman were required to fight when you are called to do so, who would take care of the kids if both are sent off to fight?
If you had to choose who goes, who would you pick? I am sure in the household that it would probably come down to who is most capable of surviving.
Or maybe I am a 'man-izer' and appreciate a man because of his strength and for the most part, (so I believe) their role in protecting woman and children.
Of course when it comes to the home, I make the calls. lol
This is not a solicitation.
Please read my Hub on the "beautiful" country.
I would shoot my kid in the foot before I let him go...
A form or political correctness. Females may join the military but God forbid we hint at making their service mandatory.
Agreed. I was in the Army in the late 80's and early 90's in the medical field. We had plenty of females that were equally qualified as me but were refused the opportunity to compete for certain performance related services. I competed in and was rewarded with an Expert Field Medical Badge (EFMB)for proving my expertise in combat related exercises. At the time females couldn't even compete. The females that had my training were only assigned to hospitals and medical centers and would never step foot in combat. Not sure how the job is today.
On selective service, the last time a draft bill went in front of congress was in 2003 and it was unanimously defeated. The author of the bill even voted against it. So why then do we continue to fund an agency of this government that will never be used and one that hasn't been used since 1973?
It is not PC, it is the complete opposite. Most women would want to be treated the same as the men. If all women were included in a draft some would be complaining that that was PC. Many people use PC to describe anything they are against.
Well, it does seem quite unfair, but more to the guys than the gals.
I agree, I do not support any draft of men or women.
I think if everyone including the congress' children were drafted we would be a lot more careful about these wars they perpetrate. Draft everyone between a certain age and become responsible and involved in the sanitary wars we have the poor fighting for us.
Maybe then the diplomacy might have more weight and purpose.
I don't think anyone should be forced to join the military. I didn't realise it was compulsory in the States - it isn't in England. In any case, aside from that I think that both men and women should be allowed to apply, and both should be treated equally should they be accepted. The value of a human life is the same regardless of whether you are male or female. Isn't it?
If wars are to be fought with hired guns it undermines the moral conscience of the masters it serves. It is far too antiseptic an atmosphere to gain any measure of cost to human life when the ones doing the fighting are not felt of as friends and family by the whole population and more like a casualty of the machine.
The popular phrasing of the Army as being a volunteer operation belies the fact that we pay these people and give them benefits as well. Mind you that does not undermine the fact that they put their lives on the line for their country but it is not a totally humanitarian thing either. You will have a greater appreciation of the cost when it is yourself and not someone who else who does the dirty work for you.
by puddingicecream6 years ago
All US male citizens are required to register for the military draft when they turn 18. Your thoughts?
by Susie Lehto11 months ago
Now, before you deny the findings, spend some time listing to the evidence with an open mind. This is not going away anytime soon by the looks of the evidence this investigation found. Sheriff Joe & his posse...
by Credence24 years ago
Hi, folks, the link that I provide is from an article written by Patrick Buchanan, not one of my favorite guys. He is blunt in his opinion and I think just as wrong. http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-surrend …...
by LiamBean4 years ago
Should combat roles be opened to women?
by Sooner285 years ago
This is a question to anyone in favor of the draft, but especially conservatives. Why do you favor involuntary servitude and putting the state's interests above all else? Why do you so readily abandon the...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Bush era = "Support our Troops"Bachmann era = "F our Troops"Michele Bachmann has yet another brilliant idea! Let's cut off the veterans!Of all the programs to even contemplate cutting, how could...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.