You wouldent even have to do that… just say your gay and no draft. I wonder if AP classes count for being in college:) Tracer in the future we will have real baby factorys to fight in wars so that arguement is invalid:)
Newt Gingrich once said that women couldn’t be in combat because “they get infections every thirty days” or something to that effect. I don’t have the exact quote; I’ll have to find my old copy of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations for the whole thing…
I feel that until women are subject to the same responsibilities as men, they will suffer from some societal resentment towards them. Thus, I would like to believe that men and women of equal circumstances should be equally eligible for the draft, including combat positions.
There has to be IMO a final point of equity, where women and men are truly shown to be considered to have equal rights and equal responsibilities.
There are many obvious issues that have to be addressed, however. Should a pregnant woman be drafted? I would have to say no, as it renders her medically unfit. OK then, what about 2 months after birth? And so forth. And I have to admit, although I feel that there should be equal responsibility, I don’t know how to work out the small child issue.
Perhaps neither parent of a child under 3 should be eligible for the draft? Some might envision a scenario of men and women deliberately becoming “baby factories” to avoid the draft, while others may envision that this is discrimination against women and/or men who are infertile.
Perhaps if society is faced with the concept of sending young women into battle, we will not be so gung-ho to send our young men into battle either. And instead work much harder to avoid a war. True, not all wars or conflicts can and should be avoided. But perhaps the “disturbing” concepts of young ladies being cut to pieces by machine-gun fire and being raped to death by enemy troops would cause more people to think twice about going to war in the first place.
BTW, it is equally disturbing that young men must go to war. I’m trying to make a point and not explaining myself very well, I’m afraid.
Just stirring the pot here, Determinist but women generally are better shooters than men as they can control their breathing more easily, have a higher pain threshold and can stand a higher G-force. I don’t have a cite, it’s just something I learnt as an RAF cadet at school. But hey, leave the fighting to the men.
Are societal traditions sufficient reason to include or exclude a given class of people? In other words, is there a constitutional basis against which the “no women in combat” policy has been tested?
I’m reminded of all the dusty, old arguments I’ve read against an integrated army, which seems analogous here in that they were principally societal biases (“It will hurt morale to have our boys mixed with theirs”; “Blacks are good in certain roles, but do you really want them to have access to any position they want?”; etc.). This just didn’t hold water–though, admittedly, that didn’t keep it from being the standard for some time.
I’ll appeal to our constitutional/legal scholars. Would a man have a compelling argument stating that it was inherently unfair (and therefore illegal) to draft him when a completely fit class of people is excluded? Has this lawsuit occurred? If we drafted only a particular ethnic group, I could see that withering quickly under the scrutiny of the courts. What makes this different?
Why isn’t it valid for me to say I don’t care what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable from a “societal tradition” perspective. Unless there’s a factual basis for excluding women, I consider my 18-year-old son as precious as you consider your 18-year-old daughter, and I will not sacrifice him just because you consider it ungentlemanly or whatever.
You get the idea (BTW, I don’t want anyone drafted, I’m just interested in the legal hypothetical).
I think this whole “protect women from war” argument is specious. At one time as others have pointed out it was mostly only the soldiers who died in war, not so in the 20th century. War’s civilian casualties have far out stripped the military since WW2.
When times are worst women have always fought in combat rolls it is only in the luxury of peace or limited war can you keep women out of combat. In the horror of the Eastern front Russian women were in both ground combat in the regular army and partisan units. Russia also had fighter and bomber squadrons that were female. Lt. Lydia Litvak (Hero of the Soviet Union) shot down 12 German planes and Lt. Katya Budanova had 11 kills. See the book “A Dance With Death” Anne Noggle.
Brave female partisans fought in Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito and with the Jewish resistance. Although women are not in combat roles in the IDF now they did fight in the war of independence, Dr. Ruth (yes that one) was a partisan who was seriously wounded in combat fighting for Israel. I wonder what Dr. Laura thinks of her? Women of the Resistance movements in Western Europe also risked death and torture fighting for the allied cause, see the gallant agent “Madline” in Stephenson’s “A Man Called Intrepid.”
In recent history during the Gulf war 4 women from my own state of PA were killed in the SCUD attack on Saudi Arabia. Flight surgeon Maj. Rhonda Cornum on a rescue mission into Iraq was shot down and became a POW. Maj. Cornum’s injuries were as follows: crushed finger, torn knee ligaments, 2 black eyes, facial lacerations, 2 broken arms and a bullet in her shoulder. She was also sexually molested, when asked about her ordeal she replied, “it just comes with the job”. Ironically the right wing uses this American heroine was a reason to keep women out of the military. See her story: “She Went To War” Rhonda Cornum.
I guess my point is women have always been involved in war and they deserve our respect and gratitude. I don’t want to see my son or daughter in war, lets work for peace.