Is Selective Service only being for men sexist?

Peace,

Well actually as far as I know, Selective Service is for males only.

 

Women ARE free to exercise their right to enlist if they wish.

 

drafting is inhumane. forcing anyone to fight against their will is cruel. period.

 

If attacked and insufficient numbers volunteer to defend, surrender?

 

Depends why that nation was attacked in the first place.

If it's the government's war, and the citizens don't support it enough to volunteer to fight it, then they need to figure out a better way to advertise them on why its cool to sign up for this war. Forcing someone to be sent away to do work at a job they do not wish to do, is a form of kidnapping if not human trafficking.

 

I was referring our own nation being attacked.

 

Irrelevant, since there is no draft. If the draft returns, then we have something to talk about.

 

So you've never been to Australia then

 

I doubt the draft would be necessary with a full scale invasion but in that case there is a lot to take into account regarding a draft. If both men and women are drafted there would have to be a lot of exemptions...no single parents of either gender, for instance. If both parents are in the home, who should stay and who should go?

 

https://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm



NOTE: On January 24, 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members, following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Based on the American Forces Press Service’s news release, “Defense Department Expands Women’s Combat Role,” dated January 24, 2013, key statements are highlighted below:
The secretary announced that the service branches will continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. The change is intended to ensure that the best qualified and most capable service members, regardless of gender, are available to carry out the mission. Panetta added, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation.”
The secretary directed the military services to undertake an evaluation of all occupational performance standards to ensure they are up to date and gender-neutral. Specialty schools will be included in the evaluation, a senior defense official said. … the entire process is to be completed by January 1, 2016.
Once the policy is fully implemented, military occupations will be closed to women only by exception, and only if approved by the defense secretary, a senior defense official said.


It's coming.

 

Feminists wanted equality. This is what they got.

As the old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for

 

meh, we, or at least, I will run. nobody should be forced to fight.

 

It may be sexist of me to say this but I've always felt that any woman who chooses the armed forces as a carreer has some personality problems. To begin with, there's little doubt that the women in the armed forces are for a large part lesbians.

Yes, I think that it's part nurture and not all nature, however I do recognize the nature part too.

And then I look at women who have risen to great heights with military affairs, such as Condo Rice and Madeleine Albright! Can anyone consider them to be normal women? I mean, the kind you would take home to meet good ol mom?

 

Good ole Mom taught aerial gunnery in the Navy in WWII! Watch it boy! lol

 

Yeah, I guess the US got a pass on that war. Probably the last one though. Good ol mom came forward out of necessity as opposed to today's girl/boys who come forward out of excitement over being just like the real boys. I mean, take Rachel Maddow and watch how she is obviously wetting her pants when she gets to talk with the soldiers! (and I don't mean pee)

(you aren't old enough be calling me boy)
(and I'm not a black guy either)

 

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this thread. This post is [/thread]...:afro:

 

There 'is' some sense in that tongue in cheek remark though. I'm certainly of the opinion that women such as Albright or Condo Rice have a special sort of brutality and viciousness that actually makes them come off as scary. Could it be that a woman of that sort would need to be called upon to push the red button for the US president? Could it be a manifestation of a sickness that very few men would be capable of.

For example, with Rice was it not noticeable how easily and callously she lied about Saddam's WMD's when she must have knew it would cost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives?

don't write it off so quickly. We can turn stupid discussions into something quite worthwhile sometimes.

 

Your age and/or race have nothing to do with my referring to you as boy, it's your immature attitude and verbal behavior that caused me t say that.
There's a good chance I just might have a year or two on you.

 

Maybe pal, I'll be 70 later this year. But tell me then what made you call me boy? If you thought, rightly or wrongly, that you were old enough to look down on me and call me boy then I can accept that. Are you?

p.s. to be perfectly honest, I have a problem with Amuricans in general. it's sort of got something to do with my vocation which led me to study history and especially the history of the world wars and related subjects. a hint, I'm seeing a beginning of a repeat of Nazi tactics in play. we could talk about that sometime if you're old enough to understand.

 

It was your sexist attitudes that led to that. I've worked crisis intervention and crowd control almost always with a female partner to watch my back or visa versa. A dear friend was the first female to be invited to compete in the King's Invitatinal in Thailand.
btw; Dad was the welter weight champ of the Pacific Theater in WWII.
also I'll hit 70 in Oct.