I'm particularly pissed off that there's a bill before Congress to reinstate the draft, and this is the first I've heard of it! Why isn't this garnering more media attention?

I'm torn on this subject. Should women fight and risk their lives for a country that doesn't give them equal rights - only more than women receive in other countries? Good question...

I have a chronic medical condition that disqualified me for service eight years ago, when I was thinking of enlisting. So, who knows if I would be drafted. I would take Conscientious Objector status before I'd fight in a war I don't agree with (i.e. Iraq).

absolutely not. there were black men being drafted in vietnam. did black americans have equality? no. & we still don't. i feel that any country that treats ANY citizens like they're less important than others is not worthy of service from any citizen at all. i shouldn't be forced to do anything by the government, least of all put my life at risk.

I'm under 30, but as a nearsighted homos exual with a brain malformation and an anxiety disorder, I'm pretty sure that Uncle Sam does not want me personally, pending legislation notwithstanding.

That said, ew. Ew, ew, ew. Ew.

Not that I don't care about the equality aspect of it, but the war and the draft, and hell, let's include the military in general for good measure, are diametrically opposed to my sense of morality, and I want everything related to the current situation to stop. Now. Grr.

I believe that forcing someone to do something they do not want to is a bad idea in general. I sure as hell would not be putting forth any effort on behalf of a third party that has no interest in me as a human being.

They can reinstate the draft all they want...and I'll gladly hand over my US citizenship.

I have a question. Is the "bill before Congress" to which you refer the Rangel bill? Chuck Rangel, a representative from Harlem, is one of the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war. He proposed this "draft" to prove a point: Rich, white politicians are perfectly prepared to send his (young, male) constituents to die, yet they would never support a measure that would include their own children.

Furthermore, I wonder what you consider to be the "free world." For all its problems, Israel has what looks to most people in the United States to be a Western Democracy, and all of its citizens (besides the Hasidic Jews) serve four mandatory years in the military.

That being said, you will see Don't Ask Don't Tell lifted before you will see a draft that includes womyn. Of the things to worry about in this war, I wouldn't include it.

Hey you stole my topic!!! here

Oops, my comment got cut off. My response is up here

honestly, i believe that we have to accept rights with responsibilities. it's all coming in very gradually, but if we balk at the nasty parts (even those this nasty), we can't expect the really good parts. however, we should still expect the situation for women in the military to improve before they start drafting us, as they cannot expect us to walk into such conditions (actually, they shouldn't force anyone into war, not even willing soldiers, but that's another story).
expanded version here.

My response is short here and pretty similar to the other sentiments expressed thus far.

You obviously didn't mean *me*, but i'd love to join the discussion. I don't have answers, but more questions, so I'll insert my comments into a re-post of the message. i'm very sympathetic to the feminist cause, so where the limitation of this medium cause ambiguity, please assume a spirit of intellectual curiosity rather than hostility:

Should someone who makes .76 cents on the dollar compared to a man

(my comment: isn't 76 cents pretty amazing, considering men don't typically take time out to have children? my wife hasn't earned income in 9 years (out of the 11 since she graduated from college), and we'd be THRILLED if she went back to work and started making 76% of what I make. i haven't followed this issue as closely as necessary to anticipate the response to this obvious counterpoint, so forgive me if there's too much there to explain)

who has never had a President in the history of this country

(my comments: does this make women not invested in defending our society? in principal, this one is really hard to swallow. i mean, really, isn't there a lot more to your community that makes it worth defending than simply who occupies the white house? as a group (which is how you're framing this issue), regardless of what the SYSTEM has put in the white house, don't the women of this country have feelings for their families and communities that imply at LEAST as much interest in seeing them properly defended as the boys that are currently doing most of the dying? if things come to the point where a draft is necessary to preserve our existence as a nation - one that is further along the road to liberty and equality combined with acceptance of diversity than just about any society in the history of the world - shouldn't we all bear that burden and help preserve the progress that has been made so far? are you so much of a separatist that you'd gladly stand by and watch the rest of us go up in flames, or is this simply a rant against the root cause of the CURRENT situation (bush, et al) for whom i agree NO ONE should be dying for) if that's the case, please accept my apologies, but it seems that you're arguing that until there's pristine perfection via absolute equality, women are excused from caring about what happens, which is deeply offensive and unrealistic - just ask any woman who lost someone dear on 9/11)

who has little say in the development of public policy

(there's a lot of women out there making up the electorate, not to mention the policy elite, seems to me - senators, congresswomen, media heavy hitters, etc. maybe it's not proportionate, but is it fair to say "little"?)

who is not allowed the freedom to control her reproductive activity

(huh? what reproductive activity is being dictated? are you talking about the partial birth abortion ban? if so, that's not something that effects very many people. i'm not commenting on the justice of the law, just saying that it wouldn't really be fair to use that to justify your last statement)

who is vulnerable to rape and torture by her own comrades in arms with no recourse for protection

(huh? again. as someone who served, there's TONS of recourse if something happens. obviously it's a terrible decision to have to make if it comes to that, but there is definitely a chain of command made up of real human beings. you simply CANNOT say that there's NO recourse)

looks like you edited. cool - this is still being updated.

you say: "Both the Democratic and Republican candidates support it." (referring to the draft)

really? no. really? link? that would be shocking if true, and i'd love to see an update on that one. as someone opposed to the current course of the country, i'd love to see all those bush voters confronted with the true cost of their actions. is that really happening?

you say: "To the best of my knowledge, this would be the first time in modern history that women in the "free world" will be subject to the draft."

so, what do you make of that? i would say it's a mixed blessing - more equality, but unfortunately in service of a corrupt regime.