<p>Current manpower levels are not really tied to warfighting requirements but to budgetary restraints. The easiest way to balance budgets in the US is to balance military spending (the majority of the budget is dedicated to entitlements like Social Security which are hard to adjust). The quickest way to adjust spending is through DoD manpower costs.</p>
<p>Not only are women not required to sign up for Selective Service, they cannot by law sign up even if they want to.</p>
<p>The big flurry of interest in the armed forces was reportedly in the last three months of 2008. I assume that it will take some time to train them for their duties.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mandatory combat service is sometimes necessary, do you really want young girls sent off against their will for that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is ok to make men do something they don't want to do, but not women? cool.</p>
<p>Well I was drafted, and I didn't approve of that. Still, I think that if there is conscription for war, it should be only for boys. So something isn't equal? Too bad.</p>
<p>When men have the option of going through labor and childbirth, come back and we'll talk about being equal.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I don't understand why its ok to force a male to sign up and do something he may not want to do but same can not be said for females. Someone further up in the thread said they would be ok if women weren't sent overseas in a teaching or medical aid capacity but not combat. I assume that because they could be mothers but what about the young fathers sent over to do combat? Are they somehow seen as lesser than a mother. </p>
<p>For the record., I am a female, 28 and married. 5 years ago I seriously considered joining the Navy with the full support of my husband. 2 things held me back 1) my intense fear of water (i.e. swimming) 2) my father (ex. military) was very much against his oldest daughter going into the military.</p>
<p>Not to hijack this thread even further, but ...
[quote]
And in this era of equal rights why arent females required to register with SS?
[/quote]
Considering the Equal Rights Amendment still hasn't passed, we're not there yet.</p>
<p>^^Brava!^^</p>
<p>The reason females are not required to register with the SS is quite simple.</p>
<p>Congress does not allow females to serve in direct combat roles (even though they do - that is another topic).
The purpose of registering with the SS if for the country to have a pool of available young men to serve in Combat roles - i.e. Infantry; when and if there is a "National Emergency".
Since women are excluded from combat there is no point in having them register.</p>
<p>Complain to Congress.</p>
<p>
[quote]
expected girls to go off to get blown up in Iraq
[/quote]
</p>
<p>this has already happened. It isn't very difficult to do a search and come up with quite a number of women in the military who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service to their country. If you need a little help here - let me know.</p>
<p>Military members with families - people in the military who have a family or get a family while serving are REQUIRED to produce a care plan for their dependents should they be deployed. If they cannot or willnot do so then they are discharged.
Every parent who is deployed knows and understands this upfront. Male parents and female parents are treated equally.</p>
<p>Don't forget the SS is a duty. If it was to be activated it would be your duty, as an American male, to serve in the armed forces if called. </p>
<p>That duty is payback for the services the country renders you for your whole life.</p>
<p>Politics should not enter into this. If you are needed then you should be going. The benefits available from the federal government are only given when you register for a reason.</p>
<p>I am heartened that I haven't seen anyone saying they are going to move to Canada with their kids or anything because they are just scared out their minds for their poor baby.</p>
<p>Let them man up.</p>
<p>"...man up" gee- why do guys need to be "manly". It doesn't impress women. In answer- there is a current book titled "Guyland" that addresses such issues and it involves male peer pressures. With so many brain studies out there to show physical correlations with gender differences there are real differences between men and women. </p>
<p>Back to selective service, the draft... A peacetime military is not meant to handle the burdens currently imposed by the war in Iraq. Try to bring back the draft and you face the ire of a very large boomer population who was of an age to be involved in the Vietnam war and all of the problems it generated in the U.S. -we still remember those days and don't want them again. As for all of the problems faced by reservists et al, they volunteered to accept a paycheck knowing their lives could be disrupted. Both parents in- they also knew, or should have thought about, potential consequences and chose the extra money.</p>
<p>Until women have equal access to equal positions in power structures at all levels, in all areas, I am not bothered by women not being able to be drafted.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is (alas), the LAW is that males must register at 18. The question that pops up on the Fafsa really sends parents into space -- we're right at a vulnerable time (baby is growing up!) and we're chewing nails over the upcoming college expenses and WHAMMO, we get to think about DS going off to the next military quagmire. </p>
<p>It is a military maxim that commanders tend to fight the last war -- not the current situation. So it is with information about the draft -- rest assured that the next draft will not look like the last one. There might not be college deferments --- going to Canada almost certainly will not be an option (already stuff on the books that is different than 30 years ago). WHEN a draft is imminent, then is the time to get on the horn and make opinions count with congresscritters. And, depending on the circumstances, one's opinions might be different (see the movie "Independence Day"). Until then, the fafsa question should not put anyone's knickers in a twist! Kick this one down the worry list.</p>
<p>My son's senior counselor told him to register when he turned 18. I believe when he got his license at 16 he also signed up pre-registration form.</p>
<p>IMO, there will only be a draft if we are invaded... and in that situation, people will be lining up by the tens or hundreds of thousands to protect the country.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When men have the option of going through labor and childbirth, come back and we'll talk about being equal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I fail to see how this is related to anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Gstein, you are the bitter one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, my posts prove that I'm bitter. GREAT comeback. lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mandatory combat service is sometimes necessary, do you really want young girls sent off against their will for that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said they have to have combat roles? There are many other duties required in a time of war that women could contribute to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When men have the option of going through labor and childbirth, come back and we'll talk about being equal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Labor and childbirth is optional... as you said. Being drafted is not.</p>
<p>P.S. Did you not hear about that one "man" giving birth last year? jk.</p>
<p>RockStar - Thanks for being manly enough to perform your duty to America - many of us appreciate the personal sacrifice you have chosen to make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why do guys need to be "manly". It doesn't impress women.
[/quote]
I dunno if that's true. I am a woman and I like "manly" men. </p>
<p>gstein - all good but the purpose of the draft is not to fill the military - it is to fill the INFANTRY. </p>
<p>I think soccerguy315 has it right.<br>
Registration has been going on for a generation now - most fathers of young men had to register - maybe they just don't remember? It really isn't that big of a deal.</p>
<p>"Someone further up in the thread said they would be ok if women weren't sent overseas in a teaching or medical aid capacity but not combat"</p>
<p>I once talked to a military guy about this ^. He raised a good point -- he said having women in all the 'safe' (state-side, etc.) jobs would actually be harder on the guys -- it means more guys are sent into the front lines & they have fewer options to rotate into safer positions. So, it's not just chivalry that makes some men oppose possible female conscription, etc. -- it's self-preservation. I thought that was interesting and relevant.</p>
<p>The best explanation I remember was "it motivates the enemy side too much...they don't want to be defeated by girls".</p>