Should it be mandatory for females to apply to selective service?

Answer 1

Mandatory? Unless we are invaded here in the USA, No.

From a 48 year old female who has lived a hard working life perspective, I can see some specially trained women perfecting their brand of war craft as snipers, pilots, and other types of fighting that involves working alone and not a lot of ongoing physical hardship. As far as groups of combat soldiers (infantry), I don't know. The physical limitations most females have of not being able to pick up a two hundred pound fallen soldier and carry him to safety might have me deploying females to more selective types of warfare. I have no problem with female soldiers, but would want them deployed efficiently to the best of their personal limitations. Men have limitations, too, but theirs go beyond the females as far as strength goes.

Personally, I would enlist as a sniper, but at 48 years old that is never going to happen though I would make an excellent one.

Then there is the rape factor. I know some male soldiers are raped by their captures, but rape is more of a man on woman event. To witness their fellow soldier being raped and probably gang raped or to have the captured male soldier forced to rape a fellow female soldier at gunpoint might effect the other soldiers emotionally to the point they won't fight anymore along side females.

It is a known fact that men think differently than women. This could cause problems, too. Plus, some men instinctively have a strong sense to protect women at the risk of their own lives. Having that mindset would cause distractions not worth having on the field of combat. A perfectly good male soldier gets killed or maimed for life because he instinctively seeks to protect a female has me declining that females be forced into selective service as fighters. That's hardcore wiring when it is in the instincts and instincts kick in when a live fire situation occurs.

Answer 2

No, and the reason is not based on the fact that women shouldn't be allowed to enlist....they definitely should, if that is what they choose. My 21 yr old daughter is an MP3 in the Army as I type, and because of her size (Amazon) I've been told by several of her male buddies "she can hold her own" ... awesome.
She is pretty so has had several episodes of sexual harassment, but has dealt with it professionally. I taught her well. My mother and father were both Air Force, etc. and at 21, I was literally 10 seconds away from swearing into the Marine Corp. which I don't regret to this day for not having done.

Having studied history, the main reason why societies do not believe in having women in combat is actually primitive in thinking, but sound in practice. Men are being killed in large numbers and, if women were not back home to populate/replace those erased, the society/country would be weakened/crippled and thus vulnerable should there be a future war. Survival at its basic level.

In Africa, many tribes had a ritual where the father, knowing the tribe was going into battle, would attempt to impregnate his wife as well as all the female children capable of producing a child, just in case he did not return or their tribe lost. Those who think this a bad act, obviously didn't have to face the loss of their way of living. It was actually done out of love for their continuance...
again survival at its basic level.

Also, it was because of the Vietnam War that the guys upstairs stood up and took notice when they found out that the most cunning enemy were the Vietnamese women. They were more quiet, swift and hit before anyone knew what was happening. And yes, our men would often freeze not wanting to kill a woman....it can work in reverse.

Answer 3

Yes, if it is mandatory for 18 yo males, then it should be manadatory for 18 yo. females to apply to selective service as well. The only drawback would be that we'd see a huge jump in the pregnancy rate.
Bush was a cheerleader, I guess women could do the same, unless they want to fulfill their civic duty when drafted.

Answer 4

i don't help the draft, there are too many human beings being taken removed from their families now to in all probability loss of life for oil interior the middle East because it somewhat is. Why could we stress human beings sometime the two mum and dad to bypass away their little ones in the back of with Grandma and Grandpa, in the event that they're nevertheless around, to bypass combat a war that would desire to have ended via now? in the event that they start sending the Republicans over privileged little ones to war, and not as pilots, yet as floor battling infantrymen, perhaps i'd desire to have faith this war became for something different than greed, yet while it became the Republicans in place of work who took their eye off the rationalization for us agreeing to the war, Osama Bin encumbered, and saved the war approximately him, extremely of Iraq, I gotta have faith this war became began with the purpose of having administration of the oil in Iraq and everywhere Else interior the middle East, for G.W. Bush and employer from the get bypass. No, no draft, or as you're saying, No needed provider, we are paying sufficient.

Answer 5

Yes, or it should just be done away with. This is 2007, not 1955. Though women will not serve in the infantry or artillery, they could be "drafted" if needed into all the other roles needed in the military.

Answer 6

Yes, I believe with equal rights, comes equal responsibility!

Answer 7

bush's daughters can be the poster children and sign up first.

just like there dad did in the war.. stay at home base

Answer 8

No. First thing that comes to mind for a reason to let them stay home, is children.

Answer 9

Yes it should. We wanted equality and that comes as part of it.

Answer 10

No. The U.S. should abolish that law completely so that neither males nor females must apply.