Is Selective Service only being for men sexist?

...My two cents is it is sexist. I don't see why women don't have to register for Selective Service and men do. Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

"The Selective Service System is an independent agency of the United States government that maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays" Wiki

 

Selective Service is meant to be for drafting combat troops. Until recently women were excluded from combat.

Maybe it'll change soon.

 

I personally can both see how some people would view it as sexist and it is a good question. But when it comes down to it I really don't feel it is sexist. Because what it comes down to is there are differences between males and females and (most) men are better equipped for combat situations than most females. I mean take sports teams... Olympics whatever... in the Olympics men don't compete against women. It wouldn't be fair. Women's and women's bodies are different-men have more testosterone and can built more muscle and are just better at most physical things usually.

For that reason I don't feel it's really sexist. Just because men and women should have equal rights that doesn't mean that men and women should always be treated like they are exactly the same with no differences.

 

Women should not be drafted bc as everybody knows they are far too vicious for civilized combat.

 

Its really hard for me to answer this because I dont believe in the draft at all

 

There are men who are puny and boney. They still must register. There are men who are effeminate (and women who are masculine;) effeminate men still must register.

I think it is sexist. Women already serve in the military so it is a fact that women can serve.

 

Thanks for answering anyway.

 

BTW; My mother was an aerial gunnery instructor in the Navy WWII. I've worked security & crisis intervention almost always with a female partner.

 

I think that's changed, and that women can be drafted now for combat so this question is a bit obsolete.

But like the nature of combat has changed, lots of it is cyber warefare now, and fighting isn't done with physique entirely anymore, so the lateralization between men and women matter less.

1. Can you be trained to drive or operate an aircraft of some sort that is valuable in the field?

2. Can you understand maps and geography and handle life or death pressure well?

3. Can you be trained in martial arts, knife fighting, and how to shoot guns?


Anybody who says chicks are by default "smaller or weaker" have never seen a good portion of women fight. They are not to be underestimated as strong, and cunning fighters or be any less valuable teammates compared to their male counterparts.

^Thought we learned that lesson by now, guess not.

---

If anything it changes the game politically when war talk is brought up. Parents now have to consider losing ALL of their children in war conflicts, whereas before they would just lose their sons, before they go voting for war.

 

Considering how the selective service is a governmental exploitation of unwilling men to be used as disposable muscle for armed conflicts. Yeah I guess you can say it is sexist.

And no, I don't think allowing the draft to include women would make it justifiable.

 

Can you spell 'cannon fodder'?

 

Yea, just to make a note on this thread.... with what I said earlier being true (even though I can understand someone calling it sexist), I also do not agree w the draft at all what so ever. It should def be abolished for everyone.

 

You are right. That is why I said things like MOST men are more muscular, have more testosterone etc and for other similar reasons that MOST men are better for combat situations then MOST women.


And just because some women sign up for the military and serve well doesn't mean that every woman could do the same thing as easily.

In addition I'm sure it has something to do with the possibility of taking women away during childbearing years when they could be pregnant OR and yes, this is a generalization.... but more women are also responsible for being primary caretakers of children. Yes, I know some men are stay at home dads. I think that's great and neither women NOR men should be put in a box in that area (amongst other areas) but generally speaking more women are better equipped and want to be primary caretakers of children....and since the draft, I believe, lasts til age 27 (possibility to be drafted) overall that would effect more women than men as well...

 

Not that you were speaking just to me or anything but just one last comment on this thread...I def don't think women shouldn't be allowed in the military or something. And I know many women want to join, do join and do well.

I just don't think it makes as much sense to draft women because of facts about women not having men's bodies, possibly having kids at home, etc.--- nor do I think anyone should be drafted.

But no, again, I do not feel the policy is sexist nor should it be changed to include women. Should it be changed to not exist? Sure.

 

Eh, my last reply here for a while. I should have multi quoted.

Anyways... I am a female. Who is trained in martial arts. Who has never lost a fight and could probably kick many guy's asses.

I still stand by what I say and if you wanna say I didn't learn some lesson then say what you wanna say... I know better and I stand by what I said. But it's my personal opinion. Apparently if someone's opinion differs around here then someone "hasn't learned". (kinda funny cause I knew I kicked ass at fighting since a very young age.)

Of COURSE women can do just as well or better in the military. But women should not be FORCED to be treated like men when they are not men. And not as many women WANT to join anyways.

Geez.

Anyways... if my son would ever be drafted to war when he's older I'd encourage him not to go. I'd do the same for my daughter. And if I ever would have been drafted (as a female) I would have ran to another country. No way in hell I would have went to a war. So maybe that clouds my view some. I don't know... maybe if I thought war was awesome I'd be like "this isn't fair that females can't be forced to join" (don't know why I'd say that though anyways as females can join if they want and males aren't forced to join now days anyways.). But yea, fuck that. (drafting females shit.)

 

I don't think war necessarily has anything to do with who is more muscular or who has more testosterone. It just has to do with who is willing to fight. So unless you're saying that being a woman automatically makes you a coward, it's sexist to me to say that only men must register.

Even if women were not allowed to be in combat roles -- which by the way I think is BS to say that their being females means they should automatically be excluded from combat roles -- they could help in non-combat roles, so why should they be excluded from a draft?

 

Let it go. It's my opinion and I am a female who IS strong but that doesn't change the fact that physically most females compared to most males are not built to run as fast and do other physical things as well as males. If there were just as many females in combat roles in the military against other militaries/groups/countries that were all males...

I said before and I'll say again I have nothing against females being able to be in ANY ROLE in the military and many can and do it well.

And you didn't even comment on what I said about how since it goes up to age 27 many females (and males) have kids between age 18 and 27...and someone needs to stay at home with kids. If they would just draft all the males and females in families, that would be great huh?

So, whatever, I'm sexist towards my own gender. Whatever. It's what I believe and if you think males and females are the same exactly, great. I don't care.

I don't think males should be drafted though either, I said over n over. (I'm not gonna debate this back and forth w the same people over this anymore for two reasons-people can have different opinions and also I think I very clearly stated that this was a good question and I had to think about an answer. I also originally stated that I can see why some people would consider it sexist. I just personally don't but I don't have a really strong opinion on it anyways.)

 

Peace,

Sorry if I offended or upset you. I agree that we can agree to disagree.

Peace,
nunnies

 

This entire thread is a misnomer though because it's creation happened AFTER the combat restriction was lifted meaning the issue is now false and does not exist in the USA.