both mccain and obama want a draft Options

[Seeker]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/91958...d=elections.xml

[Hartmann]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/91958...d=elections.xml

According to that it sounds as though McCain does not support a draft (and neither does Obama) but if there was a draft, Obama would like for women to register.

I'll probably come off as completely sexist but I view it as a reality that men and women are physically different and while some women can bench 250 lbs, most cannot and most women would not make great fighters on the front line of war. It has nothing to do with superiority, just body mechanics. Just like I don't have a body made for child bearing, a woman does not have the body (without serious work) to go out and fight a war. That's not to say that there are not capable women currently serving, I just see women being drafted as a bad idea all around. This country saw what an open draft did during Vietnam, it sent men who were unfit physically to fight a war and most of them didn't come back. You don't throw bodies on the battlefield if you don't have to.

[Inferia]

I'll probably come off as completely sexist but I view it as a reality that men and women are physically different and while some women can bench 250 lbs, most cannot and most women would not make great fighters on the front line of war. It has nothing to do with superiority, just body mechanics. Just like I don't have a body made for child bearing, a woman does not have the body (without serious work) to go out and fight a war. That's not to say that there are not capable women currently serving, I just see women being drafted as a bad idea all around. This country saw what an open draft did during Vietnam, it sent men who were unfit physically to fight a war and most of them didn't come back. You don't throw bodies on the battlefield if you don't have to.

So essentially you're saying sending the physically unfit to fight a war is a bad idea. Many men and women are unfit and can't fight a war (without serious work), I feel like your argument just support having a draft is a bad idea, not drafting women is a bad idea...

Before people start attacking me, I'm just trying to get a more introspective post, something other than women can't serve because they a) suck at doing things, b ) are physically unfit, c) too emotional. Because many men a) suck at doing things, b ) are physically unfit, c) too emotional. There may be lots of reasons why women shouldn't be drafted, but I feel like those are not it. One of my professors had a baby, took a 2 week leave, then came back to work. The second baby took even less time. So there are women who can handle a baby and work. And yes, I know men who are just attached to their babies as women. You hear about many men coming back from war completely messed up, with depression, post-traumatic stress, etc, were these men just too "emotionally weak" to handle it? I sure hope seeing your buddy get killed or people get blown up will make someone emotional or else this world would be a scary place to live.

Just my 2 cents.

[Hartmann]

So essentially you're saying sending the physically unfit to fight a war is a bad idea. Many men and women are unfit and can't fight a war (without serious work), I feel like your argument just support having a draft is a bad idea, not drafting women is a bad idea...

Before people start attacking me, I'm just trying to get a more introspective post, something other than women can't serve because they a) suck at doing things, are physically unfit, c) too emotional. Because many men a) suck at doing things, are physically unfit, c) too emotional. There may be lots of reasons why women shouldn't be drafted, but I feel like those are not it. One of my professors had a baby, took a 2 week leave, and came back to work. The second baby took even less time. Her husband is a professor as well. So there are women who can handle a baby and work. And yes, I know men who are just attached to their babies as women.

It's not about being attached to babies, I physically cannot produce a baby. Does that make me inferior? (don't answer that, some feminists would say "yes")

And the argument at its center is physical and emotional abilities. We have physical differences and our brains are wired differently. http://www.thirdage.com/love-romance/the-m...he-female-brain (goofy article but has some good points).

Of course there are women who can fight just as there are men who can't, so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete.

And yes, I'm completely against the draft.

[Inferia]

It's not about being attached to babies, I physically cannot produce a baby. Does that make me inferior? (don't answer that, some feminists would say "yes")

And the argument at its center is physical and emotional abilities. We have physical differences and our brains are wired differently. http://www.thirdage.com/love-romance/the-m...he-female-brain (goofy article but has some good points).

Of course there are women who can fight just as there are men who can't, so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete.

And yes, I'm completely against the draft.

Women have served in the military since WWI, they've seen people with wounds that we probably can't imagine and endure harsh conditions just as well as men. Yes, body mechanics of women are different from that of men's, but this isn't the olympics, we're not looking to break a world record, we're just looking for people to fight a war. By that stance, the asian body stature is smaller than that of the Caucasian stature which is not as built as the African stature, that means Africa should be kicking everyone's ass because they're "more fit" and Asia should never win a war because they're "less fit". *cough*vietnam*cough*. Just the other day I read about the emerging female hunters in the wall street journal. It was about how Palin represent a new class of hunters, they are desperately trying to increase the popularity of their support since their numbers are dwelling. Their new target, pardon the pun, are women hunters. There are now women who are winning hunting competitions over men because of their attention to details and skills. Male hunters don't like this much, they like how their membership is increasing, but somehow they don't like how women are actually accomplishing something real in a male dominated field. Is this just another case of you're-making-my-balls-smaller syndrome? That by putting women down as "not good enough", "biologically inferior", "emotionally weak", is another way of artificially making men feel better about their supposed superiority? Haven't seen this before over and over again? If you're doing front line fighting then you should be physically fit and emotionally stable, and that goes for everybody, even men, but this has nothing to do with drafting women. Perhaps our old stereotypes about women is plain old, perhaps we'd be completely surprised if you truly study it.

[Hartmann]

Women have served in the military since WWI, they've seen people with wounds that we probably can't imagine and endure harsh conditions just as well as men. Yes, body mechanics of women are different from that of men's, but this isn't the olympics, we're not looking to break a world record, we're just looking for people to fight a war. By that stance, the asian body stature is smaller than that of the Caucasian stature which is not as built as the African stature, that means Africa should be kicking everyone's ass because they're "more fit" and Asia should never win a war because they're "less fit". *cough*vietnam*cough*. Just the other day I read about the emerging female hunters in the wall street journal. It was about how Palin is a new class of hunters, they are desperately trying to increase the popularity of their support since their numbers are dwelling. Their new target, pardon the pun, are women hunters. There are now women who are winning hunting competitions over men because of their attention to details and skills. Male hunters don't like this much, they like how their membership is increasing, but somehow they don't like how women are actually accomplishing something real in a male dominated field. Is this just another case of you're-making-my-balls-smaller syndrome? That by putting women down as "not good enough", "biologically inferior", "emotionally weak", is another way of artificially making men feel better about their supposed superiority? Perhaps our old stereotypes about women is plain old, perhaps we'd be completely surprised if you truly study it.

I know that women have served since WWI (and before).

And obviously you missed the most important part of my post where I said: "so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete."

I have no problem with women serving on the front lines, but if they are going to serve, they have to pass the same stuff the men do, right now they do not but women don't seem up in arms in about that. That's the only way you are going to get rid of the "my balls are getting smaller syndrome" with men on the front lines.

So let me say it again before you write another post directed towards me like I am some "women should be in the kitchen!" person, I am fine with women serving in the armed services and on the front lines as long as they pass the same physical and mental tests that men have to pass.