Well, I’ve often told my husband that if it ever comes to war again, the question of whether to declare war or not should be put up to national vote. If you want to vote FOR war, then you just fill out a SS registration form, and your card goes into a big barrel with the rest. Again, no exemptions. If you think that war is worth enough that other people should die for it, then you should put your money where your mouth is.
True, but they do have different provisions for women and the women serve less time. Also, women who immigrate or want to serve from another country have an earlier cutoff age.
Orthodox women are not required to serve or are exempted…Orthodox men can spend part of their time studying religion. Most Haredi just don’t serve as they are so religious that it’s expensive and almost impossible for the IDF to accommodate them all.
So even Israel struggles with those issues. Is there a way that we can balance fairness (women soldiers) with fairness (in regards to nature)?
I do applaud it as being a force that allows women to serve in ANY role that a man does. F yeah!
That is actually a problem - even if you exempted single parents with sole custody (mothers and fathers) and exempted women for, say, two years after childbirth (obviously there would have to be some exception for women after childbirth, as well as during pregnancy), even married women with kids are more likely to be the main caregiver than married men are. That wouldn’t just be a problem for the women or the children, but for the husbands or dual-custody fathers. Women are also more likely to be the ones looking after elderly parents.
But maybe it could be accounted for in some way - proving you have a dependent who needs for x hours per week or something; you’re the one named on their child benefit or disability allowance form, something like that. That would actually also be fairer for the men who do take on the majority of the childcare or are carers for their grandparents, etc.
Overweight or unfit women, however, could be treated the same as overweight or unfit men.
In a devastated nation lacking industrial or agricultural productivity lots of hungry, unproductive, young mouths aren’t a top priority.
An imaginary difference in income per labour unit, even if it wasn’t imaginary, wouldn’t be equivalent to being enslaved and sent to die.
Now, I’m not from the USA, or Norway or one of those other countries that runs men-only conscription/national service programmes, but I believe this is a more immediate concern than presented. There are penalties for not registering for the SS now, after all, this isn’t just a situation that may arise in a future war. And that’s even more the case in any nation with an active national service requirement, of course.
And what Lynn said about abortions, too. For practical reasons, pregnant women will be less effective soldiers.
True. When the next wide-scale war comes a kid might be “Googled” into service… not “drafted”. 
More meaningfully on topic: Of course women should have to register for the draft. Remind me again why they’re not? Regardless of whether the USA maintains its “no women in combat” policy, there are clearly plenty of non-combat slots in the military that need to be filled–even moreso in any conflict serious enough that a draft would be considered.
And if a conflict was that serious and required that much, uh, peoplepower, you can bet that the easily obtained list of eligible people that dbx820 mentioned would be utilized to conscript a bunch of women.
We should either have women register for the draft now, or just do away with draft registration period (knowing we could round the kids up for slaughter anyway when the time comes to paint the ground red.)
Actually, I’ve always felt that everyone should be drafted (not registered–DRAFTED) at age 18 anyway. But with a choice to serve either in the military or in one of an expanded number of useful service corps (i.e. not only AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, but some new ones, too.)
[fun with hijacking]
(emphasis mine)
**“Having your cake and eating it, too” **does not make any sense. If one has cake, then naturally one can ALSO: eat it, save it for later, give it away, etc. The latter follows logically from the former. When the aphorism is stated as above, the intended implication—that someone is getting double (or more) value and/or advantage from one item/status/situation—is totally lost.
One should instead turn it around and say:*** “Eating your cake and having it too”*** as this indicates that a person is completely using up a resource yet magically, somehow still possessing it even after it’s gone.
[/fun with hijacking]
That would just mean you have a lot of shoddy work or outright sabotage, while slashing the jobs & wages of those who would otherwise be doing the work taken over by draftees.
So if a male is drafted nowadays, he might get a non-combat slot – but if we start drafting women, not so much?
I’ve always been of the mind that pretty much everybody who is physically able should have to - at a minimum - go through boot camp and some form of advanced training (either technical or combat related) after they graduate high school (or turn 18 if they don’t graduate) and then do a couple of years in the reserves. It’d be expensive, but we could probably cut back on some of the stupid weapons projects that we have and more than pay for it.
I think that something like this would instill a little more discipline in most kids before they go off to college, and it would have the added benefit of putting a great many more kids in potential jeopardy of having to go off to war. I think that would have the political effect of making it much harder to make a decision to do stupid shit with our military. And if we need to fight a war, we have a large number of trained soldiers at the ready and we don’t have to keep cycling the same people through deployment after deployment.
Same here, though as others have stated, I can’t see a draft being reinstated without women also being required to sign up. It would be nice if their male counterparts would refrain from sexually assaulting them, though.
Without a doubt yes they should. Israel, to use just one example of course, has all citizens serve in the armed forces.
Equality cuts both ways.