Feminists - A question.

[miokomioko]

You really need to register for it to go to college? What other reasons cause you to need to register for it? What reasons would cause you to not have to register for it?

You can't vote without being registered.
You can't drive a car in 37 of 50 states without being registered.
You can't get financial aid for school without being registered.
You can't get a Federal job without being registered.
You can't get any job training via the Federal government without being registered.

You probably can't get a number of other things that are more specific to your state, possibly more relating to federal funding, perhaps union registration, insurance, etc... Who knows, because they make it pretty hard not to register. I even got a threatening warning from the "Selective Service System" when I tried to get my driver's license and register to vote while unregistered at the age 18.

They claim: " The goal of the Selective Service System is registration, not prosecution. Even though those who fail to register may not be prosecuted they will be denied student financial assistance, federal job training, and most federal employment unless they can provide convincing evidence to the agency providing the benefit they are seeking, that their failure to register was not knowing and willful."

[Skeeterxi]

I guess I can understand both sides of the argument. I think its pretty crappy not being able to get a license, financial aid for school or citizenship denied for refusing to register. Force women to register and deny them all those things just the same as men are. If a draft happens and the military doesn't need more women for whatever retarded reasons, just don't draft them.

[Kuya]

I wasn't aware there was an argument for there to be two sides.

[Ivve]

I guess I can understand both sides of the argument. I think its pretty crappy not being able to get a license, financial aid for school or citizenship denied for refusing to register. Force women to register and deny them all those things just the same as men are. If a draft happens and the military doesn't need more women for whatever retarded reasons, just don't draft them.

Why bother to have them register if you're not going to actually draft them? That's the most pointless thing I've ever heard in my life.

[Skeeterxi]

Why bother to have them register if you're not going to actually draft them? That's the most pointless thing I've ever heard in my life.

Well, they are not planning on drafting us either are they? If shit happens and we get drafted we get drafted. If shit happens and they happen to not need as many women as men, at least they got a pool to pull from if they ever do. It should go both ways regardless.

[aduidarnenye]

You can't vote without being registered.
You can't drive a car in 37 of 50 states without being registered.
You can't get financial aid for school without being registered.
You can't get a Federal job without being registered.
You can't get any job training via the Federal government without being registered.

I asked my American husband about this since he went to university in the US but he said he can't remember ever registering (but his memory is bad so perhaps he's wrong). I am certain, however, he voted in the 2008 election because I went to the polling station with him. He also has a driver's license. He's from California.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just trying to learn about the situation. I am really completely baffled by conscription. Canada had during the first and second world wars but it ended with the wars.

The other thing, I see no reason for women to not be included in the draft. The only disqualification above men for women should obviously be pregnancy. I thought that married men were not included in the draft as well?

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I asked my American husband about this since he went to university in the US but he said he can't remember ever registering (but his memory is bad so perhaps he's wrong). I am certain, however, he voted in the 2008 election because I went to the polling station with him. He also has a driver's license. He's from California.

The act of registering itself is rather simple, and only takes a few minutes. The implications of not registering, however, kind of suck.



As for the main point: Now, I know that most of the positions they need people for in a war couldn't be filled by women under current military regulations, but there are other things they could do. Also, I'm sure there are other government related positions that would be created by an actual war that women could do. Also, if the draft is going to stick around, it only seems fair that women should share an equal responsibility in the draft. Like I said, maybe not draft them for the infantry, but there has to be other things that come up that they could do just as well as a guy.

[Ivve]

The act of registering itself is rather simple, and only takes a few minutes. The implications of not registering, however, kind of suck.



As for the main point: Now, I know that most of the positions they need people for in a war couldn't be filled by women under current military regulations, but there are other things they could do. Also, I'm sure there are other government related positions that would be created by an actual war that women could do. Also, if the draft is going to stick around, it only seems fair that women should share an equal responsibility in the draft. Like I said, maybe not draft them for the infantry, but there has to be other things that come up that they could do just as well as a guy.

I'm sure there are plenty of things they could do if they were drafted. That's not the question. The question is what kind of hostility it would foster when you put someone out of a position they may have held for a while and are possibly more qualified to do, because you need that position for some boot motherfucker who literally can do nothing else. I don't think women would receive a warm welcome from many people at all for that.

The real solution would be to have women-only units that are trained and qualified to deploy into combat situations. The reason that this won't be done is because the military is the last bastion of boys' clubs, and they are resistant to all kinds of change. Clearly you all have not been paying attention, as recently the commandant of the Marine Corps has even had reservations about repealing "don't ask, don't tell," because he is concerned about bunking gays together with straights. I think that most of you are failing to grasp the reality of the military, both what is in place policy-wise and what the actual feelings are of current military personnel. The opinions and prejudices of those people matter, especially when it comes to why you're going to assign them to a particular job and who they're going to be working with in a situation where lives are at stake. You cannot simply shake shit up without proper consideration.

[Stumblingdrunk]

In 1981 in the United States, several men filed lawsuit in the case Rostker v. Goldberg, alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by only requiring that men register with the Selective Service System (SSS). The Supreme Court eventually upheld the Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'"[20]

Well apparently you aren't the first boys to Q_Q about this. But what i don't understand is this, you're upset that you "could" be drafted, so you've decided that just because you might be forced to do something you don't want to do, you'd like to fight so that your wives, sisters, girlfriends, or daughters are at risk as well? I do not understand the mentality that suggests crying and demanding more people suffer, is the solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. You know, since no one has been drafted in quite some time, and no one is likely to be either.

[Ivve]

Well apparently you aren't the first boys to Q_Q about this. But what i don't understand is this, you're upset that you "could" be drafted, so you've decided that just because you might be forced to do something you don't want to do, you'd like to fight so that your wives, sisters, girlfriends, or daughters are at risk as well? I do not understand the mentality that suggests crying and demanding more people suffer is the solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. You know, since no one has been drafted in quite some time, and no one is likely to either.

The answer is that some men simply don't like that they have different, and sometimes less savory, responsibilities than women in the eyes of society. They want women to have to suffer all the same shit they do, but aren't too interested in worrying about the burdens women have that men don't share.

Men and women are not the same, and they never will be. Accept it. Move on.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I'm sure there are plenty of things they could do if they were drafted. That's not the question. The question is what kind of hostility it would foster when you put someone out of a position they may have held for a while and are possibly more qualified to do, because you need that position for some boot motherfucker who literally can do nothing else. I don't think women would receive a warm welcome from many people at all for that.

The real solution would be to have women-only units that are trained and qualified to deploy into combat situations. The reason that this won't be done is because the military is the last bastion of boys' clubs, and they are resistant to all kinds of change. Clearly you all have not been paying attention, as recently the commandant of the Marine Corps has even had reservations about repealing "don't ask, don't tell," because he is concerned about bunking gays together with straights. I think that most of you are failing to grasp the reality of the military, both what is in place policy-wise and what the actual feelings are of current military personnel. The opinions and prejudices of those people matter, especially when it comes to why you're going to assign them to a particular job and who they're going to be working with in a situation where lives are at stake. You cannot simply shake shit up without proper consideration.

I've had multiple members of my family in the military, had plenty of friends go in, and been on more than a few military bases, including spending a week on a naval base, viewing basic training first hand. The big problem is that unless something changes, the attitude is going to prevail.

History has shown that women can be soldiers, like with the Russians during WWII, and the women they used. The problem is that as long as the higher ups are standing there saying "Women can't do it, nope" the people in the lower ranks are going to have that same attitude, for the most part.

[Ivve]

I've had multiple members of my family in the military, had plenty of friends go in, and been on more than a few military bases, including spending a week on a naval base, viewing basic training first hand. The big problem is that unless something changes, the attitude is going to prevail.

History has shown that women can be soldiers, like with the Russians during WWII, and the women they used. The problem is that as long as the higher ups are standing there saying "Women can't do it, nope" the people in the lower ranks are going to have that same attitude, for the most part.

I don't disagree with you. I think the answer is gradual steps toward integrating women, starting with all-women units that can prove their value and capability. No one can say that you can't do something if you just show them you can.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I don't disagree with you. I think the answer is gradual steps toward integrating women, starting with all-women units that can prove their value and capability. No one can say that you can't do something if you just show them you can.

I think that would be a really reasonable way to do it, and I hope it happens. I'm not saying I want to see women infantry specifically, I just think if they want to, they should be able to.

[Kuya]

Now, let's get started with these all female units. Maybe we should call them the FROGS?

[Ivve]

I think that would be a really reasonable way to do it, and I hope it happens. I'm not saying I want to see women infantry specifically, I just think if they want to, they should be able to.

Exactly. I just think it's kind of ridiculous to draft them into the military without solving some of the basic problems that it presents to the military itself to even draft women in the first place. In order for that to even be a successful action to take, changes would have to be made to satisfy all parties. Otherwise it's just another badly-planned action that will end up causing more problems than it actually solves -- especially since the only reason this is currently being proposed is to ease the butthurt of a handful of men who apparently have nothing better to do with their time. My opinion of this entire complaint would be completely different if the draft were either currently happening or likely to happen.

[Restrat]

Just like they don't let gay men into the army, they shouldn't allow gay women.

actually they do let gay men and women in the military. Based on the last census, it is around 3% of the military (counting reserves)

[miokomioko]

This is all I see when we discuss women who join the military. :[

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/therem...-Ana_Lucia.jpg

[aduidarnenye]

You guys are forgetting that during a war the majority of people are not on the front lines firing guns. During World War II women kept all the production factories going. In fact, factories were so desperate for women to work in them to keep the production lines going that the government ran free child care facilities so women with children could also work. They were run efficiently, cheaply, and all at the cost of taxpayers. Which is ironic now because a major sticking point in politics these days seems to be that government run child care is "socialist". Anyway, my point is that women do participate in wars through production regardless of drafts or who is actually in the military. They also bear the burden of being left behind when their husbands and sons die in combat.

Of course, all that being said, I still don't think that women are useless in combat, but then again I am Canadian and women serve in combat roles in the Canadian military so it's not a huge deal to me, like having gays in the military isn't either.

[joft]

retarded question, retarded thread

wars are bad. wars are perpetrated by men. wars invariably lead to mass rape, killing of defenseless civilians, etc. most feminists are not in favor of wars. wtf would they want to participate in something they are opposed to? registering for the draft is not a right, privilege, or responsibility. it's one of the worst remaining throwbacks to our ape ancestry.

Senoska, your question is so fucking stupid, it's like asking "if women want to be equal to men, why don't they commit more crimes? the prison population is overwhelmingly male, it's not fair to women"

[Draylo]

retarded question, retarded thread

wars are bad. wars are perpetrated by men. wars invariably lead to mass rape, killing of defenseless civilians, etc. most feminists are not in favor of wars. wtf would they want to participate in something they are opposed to? registering for the draft is not a right, privilege, or responsibility. it's one of the worst remaining throwbacks to our ape ancestry.

Senoska, your question is so fucking stupid, it's like asking "if women want to be equal to men, why don't they commit more crimes? the prison population is overwhelmingly male, it's not fair to women"

Yeah you say that yet wars that were won benefited you in many ways. If the wars we had didn't happen, life would be a lot worse off for you. It is a valid question, why should men be forced to sign up for something that people here are saying doesn't even matter, when women don't have to?