• I'm a bit of a traditionalist (or chauvinist, depending on your perspective) but women are our care givers and nurturers; MEN are our providers and protectors. Who wants to think about someone's mom or sister or daughter or wife being subjected to the horrors of war?
  • No, too much drama.
  • did you read The General Daughter by Nelson DeMille?
  • Well for one it would be very demoralizing to see wemon die in the numerous ways of war, even more so than men. In some documentry i found on youtube a russian explains this.(he was in stalingrad)Another reason is the possibilty of rape. someone is always pysco enough to do that shit. Im not insulting wemon when i say this, but wemon just dont belong on a battlefield.
  • No one should be subject to the draft. Period.
  • Waaaayyyyy too many issues. NO!!!! But if they volunteer, that's a different issue to me. Make it through basic and you can play with the boys.
  • Of course they should. Women are capable fighters, some more so than most men. I've been in a firefight with a woman, and she was more courageous than any man that was there, including myself.
  • Yes I believe a woman can fire a gun ,Fly a plane or drive a tank as well as a man so there is no reason why she should not help to defend her country.
  • No. It's a simple matter of reproductive science. Imagine you have a group of 100 men and 100 women. If 99 of the women die in combat, the population can't reproduce quickly, and there'll be loads of dead men after they fight over the woman. But if 99 men die, then the population can be regenerated because the lone man can impregnate the other women. We need women to stay behind and reproduce just enough children to replace the men who died.
  • For the sake of equality, dismissing the significance of their womb.
  • I don't believe in the draft, but if there is one, women should go just like men.
  • I don't think anyone should be drafted. However, women are trained to do so. Why should that money be wasted? If you are in the armed forces, you should be armed and ready to enforce.
  • Yes. All members of the armed forces should be subject to equal requirements of service, regardless of gender.
  • Not all women are strong enough to carry combat gear and keep up with the platoon, which could endanger every other member of that platoon. I can't see any reason to put the guys in greater danger to be politically correct. If a woman is strong enough to keep up and not be a problem, then I see no problem with volunteering for combat duty. But you can't put a 5' nothing 110 pound woman in combat and expect her to carry 50 or 60 lbs of gear without slowing the guys down. It isn't physically possible.
  • Nobody should be subject to the draft.
  • If it's necessariy then sure, personally no none should be drafted but if they are, then they both should be. I don't see why not.
  • This veteran believes women can fulfill those roles as well as men. My hestitation on it would be in the area of PTSD. It manifests differently between the genders and is much worse in females. It's an wicked disease I wish on no one and think it would need to be considered before changing our policies.
  • I would doubt that the US will ever have to institute a draft again, and certainly not anytime in the near future. However, I think if men have to register at 18 for selective service, lest they get governmental screwed, then women should have to, too. Not having them do so completely destroys the idea that genders share equal responsibility for The State, and I think that's a bad message. It doesn't matter that when I was 18 I knew I'd never get drafted - I still had to register - and knowing the women weren't required to made me have one single thought, being a feminist myself: what happened to the idea of equality?
  • The issue of pregnancy is ALWAYS going to thwart this! But if women could PROVE (through surgery for a hysterectomy or sterilization) that pregnancy WASN'T possible, then. . .I don't, at least, see why they SHOULDN'T be able to serve in combat roles if they WANTED to! I once had this discussion with my father, who is a retired career officer and women in "combat" roles. He ALWAYS argued against it. Why? "Because," he said, "a man would be compromised in his duty to fight if a woman fell on the battlefied. Just as women are prone to maternal instincts to care for a baby, so are men prone to help a woman who is hurt. Not to mention the physical attraction of men and women and that whole scenario factoring into the equation." I GUESS I could see his point! In the final analysis, he was/is DEAD SET AGAINST IT! I say, let a woman choose (assuming pregnancy ISN'T an issue).
  • No they shouldn't - nor should men.
  • Yes. Which part of Equality in all things don't you understand?
  • No, I do not agree. I'm at one with George Bernard Shaw when he says that the woman's primary and supreme role is the propagation of the species. Leaving aside moral considerations (and they do not seem to matter much in times of war), a man can "father" children by many women in a span of a few days; but each woman will take her full 9 months to deliver the baby. We cannot afford to lose women on the battlefield.
  • Yes they should, Women already enlist voluntarily
  • Yes they should, because they want equal rights, the can't just have the good fruits.
  • NO...they should be allowed duties, but not combat....secretarial, nursing, etc...but to serve as an armed combatant..NO...its not the womans role..i am a woman and never said i was equal in this way to a allow women to be drafted goes against many women who know their stations in life and it goes against my Faith too ,as it does many would be unfair to the ones who have no "manly tendancies"...or equality and domination issues...thats ..justme:)
  • No. They're the ones that make our children.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy