Replies

As I understand it, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the issue of whether females "belong" in the military or not. It's really a very reasonable lawsuit, in my opinion -- Since women are already permitted in the military in a variety of roles, and since Federal law is littered with all sorts of idiotic "equality" legislation such as Title IX (which requires schools receiving government support to fund male and female sports programs equally), then there is no reason why females should be treated any differently when it comes to the Selective Service registration.

If VMI and the Citadel are prohibited under Federal law from having all-male schools, then it seems obvious to me that Uncle Sam cannot have an all-male draft registration.

We seem to have scattered the subject here.

I believe that the subject is DRAFTING WOMEN. I also believe that in stating that drafting women was COUNTER-productive, I did address the issue.

Earlier, I stated general reasons why having women in combat is a bad thing (At least, I THINK I did.)

AS FAR AS DRAFTING:
When you draft women--I assume you mean that it will be done as men have been drafted, and on the same par--you need jobs for them.
The ASVAB Testing determines the MOS/job for which the draftee will be trained.
The number of non-combatent positions available are limited.
IF the female draftees fill all of the non-combatant positions, it seems to me that most, if not all, of the male draftees will be placed into combat.

This opens up a whole new can of proverbial worms.

LOOK, WAR is not a DEMOCRACY! Men fighting wars is time-tested. The experiments which I have seen of women in the non-traditional roles have usually been extremely COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. I don't want to lose a couple of wars by SOCIALLY EXPERIMENTATION. We seem to have lost our logic here! You can't use surface logic for much of this...but I'm sure that some will continue to try.