Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It amazes me to no end how nobody seems willing to challenge this double-standard. If women don't have the same requirement to register for the draft, why should they have the same opportunity as men to enlist?
IMO, it's time to either require everyone to register(not just men) or do away with selective service, altogether.
I agree. Equal treatment demands equal obligation.
I want a link of the study. It sounds like BS, no offense.
I agree that women and men aren't the same.
Why do you want a link? It's common sense.
There's a reason that there are both women's events, and men's events, in the Olympics. And there's a reason that in the events of speed and strength, men are faster and stronger. We all know it.
This is not a big deal, and it's not some new discovery. Nor does this mean that women are inferior to men. It just is what it is.
There's a reason that there are both women's events, and men's events, in the Olympics. And there's a reason that in the events of speed and strength, men are faster and stronger. We all know it.
This is not a big deal, and it's not some new discovery. Nor does this mean that women are inferior to men. It just is what it is.
Also, not everyone in the military is doing "physical" work, so your point is moot.
Really. The modern military is not exclusively hand-to-hand combat, requiring people of Amazon proportions and strength Even back in the Vietnam era, some went to the jungles, others were shifted to jobs fitting their specs. My husband did his tour (1967-1972) mostly on radar watch and working the very much infant-staged technology area. He would have rather fought, but his superiors said "nope, you're better suited using your brain."
People who think women aren't suited for battle, don't know their history. Our modern day military is such that women aren't needed to fight. In ancient days, women fought because they knew how dire their lives would be if the enemy won. Many archaeological digs attest to that. Raped and sold into sexual slavery; their children slaughtered - women had good reason to want to fight, and did.
Quote:
...Here come the emotional responses!
Nope. Common sense and a little research, not just blowing off your mouth.
Really. The modern military is not exclusively hand-to-hand combat, requiring people of Amazon proportions and strength Even back in the Vietnam era, some went to the jungles, others were shifted to jobs fitting their specs. My husband did his tour (1967-1972) mostly on radar watch and working the very much infant-staged technology area. He would have rather fought, but his superiors said "nope, you're better suited using your brain."
People who think women aren't suited for battle, don't know their history. Our modern day military is such that women aren't needed to fight. In ancient days, women fought because they knew how dire their lives would be if the enemy won. Many archaeological digs attest to that. Raped and sold into sexual slavery; their children slaughtered - women had good reason to want to fight, and did.
Nope. Common sense and a little research, not just blowing off your mouth.
Women weren't recruited to fight in ancient times.
Here is a little true story from half a century ago.
I shot on my high school rifle team for four years from 59/60 to 63/64. For two of those years we took our district and had a chance to compete for state championship.
My first time at our state championship I found out that we would shoot against two girl teams and one team half female and half male. I was astonished. In the 1950's we thought that only men (and boys) could shoot – we were male chauvinist.
On my first exposure, to the opposite sex shooting, there was a cute little thing that went up to the firing line. I noticed that her rear sight was loose and about to fall off. So, not wanting to take advantage of the weaker sex, I told her and tightened her sight. She went up and shot a perfect 10X target against us! The women shot the best – they got the top position.
That was the last time that I ever underestimated what a female could do – especially with a weapon in her hands. Maybe they cannot lift five hundred pounds over their heads – but they are more than capable of dropping that male chauvinist with their trigger finger.
I agree with the OP - both men and women should have to register for selective service. In this day and age, it's pretty sexist just to have the men incur this obligation.
Secondly, I agree that, just as some men aren't physically capable, many women are not as well. No problem, put those folks to work in non-combat positions. Those who can, will, those who can't can serve in other capacities. Seems pretty common sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
