<p><em>Until the societal constraints that force women to be the main caretakers of children are eliminated, it’s unrealistic to expect them to register for the draft.</em></p>
<p>The feminist movement strives to make this a reality every day – except the draft part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Until you’ve gone to foreign lands and fought for your country, I don’t want to hear it.</p>
<p>.-_-.</p>
<p>Women would fulfill men’s sexual needs while off to battle.</p>
<p>Edit: Incorrect syntax might have led to confusion…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a very selfish reason for wanting women in the military.</p>
<p>The chances of a draft are probably pretty slim; it is vastly unpopular across all of america, and most military officials have said that they don’t support the draft: they would rather have people who are willing to fight, and not against it. It makes sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I proposed that <em>every</em> military in the world should consist of 50% women.</p>
<p>^Posts like that should be shot.</p>
<p>“It isn’t gender discrimination. If you were in a war, who would you want covering you back? 90-pound Thelma who is afraid of bumblebees and likes Hillary Duff music or 200 pound Quincy who was captain of his high-school football team and can rip a man’s head off with his bare hands?”</p>
<p>How is it not gender discrimination. Also, the scenario you proposed is highly unlikely</p>
<p>It’s stupid men who make wars in the first place; so men should fight the wars their gender creates. Until half our Senate and presidents are women, don’t give me this faux equality nonsense. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see how being 90 lbs. prevents you from pulling the trigger of an M-16. Being big and beefy just makes you a bigger target.</p>
<p>
Posts like that should be shot not with a M-16, but with a AK 47. All the more damage with tumbling cartridges. Do you have any idea what kind of physical and mental shape you have to be in the battlefield? Maybe .00000001% of the women population in the whole world would be up to it. Women cannot match men in physically rigorous activities; and going through boot camp or 20 mile hikes or armed combat isn’t exactly the equivalent of your typical Saturday morning walk… It is a well known and easily demonstrated fact. </p>
<p>But you know what feminists? Go ahead, join the army. Just be sure to be in your own brigade so you don’t get actual soldiers killed. Whats next? Sending ■■■■■■■■ or lame people to war?</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>there are many women in the military who make it through basic training, and are indeed capable soldiers. However, I still don’t believe women should be actually on the field. Besides the obvious point that most male soldiers will probably out perform female soliders, its not a woman’s place out on the battle field, imho.</p>
<p>however, something we should all realize is the ever evolving art of war. actually fighting a war - at least from the US’s perspective is relatively simple. the air force and navy can take care of 99% of the hard work which previously had to be done with man power. We don’t have to march onto cities anymore - we can simply bomb the **** out of them before hand. its occupation which is the difficult part - as we can all see in our current situation.</p>
<p>“it’s not a woman’s place out on the battle field,” Next you’ll be saying that all women should stay home and be housewives. I thought that people had become enlightened since the 1940s, but I guess not.</p>
<p>Ok,</p>
<p>You are a 180 lb man who is shot in the leg on the battlefield and is wounded. 90 pound Thelma tries to pick you up and carry you to safety, but she can’t because she is 90-pound Thelma and she gets blown away. 200 pound Quincy comes along and lugs you to safety.</p>
<p>If you were wounded, would you want Thelma or Quincy trying to save you?</p>
<p>Women shouldn’t be on the battlefield, just like men shouldn’t get pregnant. Women aren’t built for it. It is a fact of life. Denying it is only ignorance. Women are perfectly capable of flying planes and commanding ships, but physically they just aren’t built for land combat. An ground army composed of 50% women would be defeated in a heartbeat, even by a lesser force.</p>
<p>I’m curious to know how many of the posters here actually has experience with the military. I’m not necessarily talking about serving, but maybe having a parent in it. Just curious, I’m not making a statement.</p>
<p>.-_-.</p>
<p>My father is currently an Army Officer and has been for the past 22 years…I’ve been living on or near military bases (including in Europe and the Middle East) for my entire life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your scenario is meaningless b/c this ubiquitous “90-lbs. Thelma” would never have made it through basic training to enlist in the ground forces. Either that, or the rigorous training will bulk and toughen her up.</p>
<p>I have friends who were in the military. No one in my family, however.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your average woman is not going to be strong enough to carry your average man. Nor will she have the mental state of mind needed for a front-line infantry soldier. Believe me, I have been living with the military for my entire life. I know how these things work, and the current system is the way that it should stay.</p>
<p>i agree with Cuse0507, my father was in the military, and i have a cousin in it currently. Women can be in the military, but I dont think they should be with the boys with an m16 in their hand going door to door in iraq. In countries where women must enlist in the military (Israel, I think S.Korea, not sure about S.Korea though) women do not do the jobs that men do. Im not talking about being an airforce pilot (although I nvr heard of a woman airforce pilot), im talking about ground combat etc… (according to my father who was in the Israeli military). In special cases, one in a handful of women will have the testosterone to do a man’s job, but thats rare.</p>