Trying to remain calm. Obama wants women to register with selective service.

[Vida Winter]

Services that would qualify would have to be those that did not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. It would be fairly simple to regulate. Organizations could submit requests for volunteers and could be screened to keep out those that are religious/discriminatory in nature (just talking public here).

 

Of course it would be after school hours. I think the American school day is way too short as it is. Considering most parents work and don't get home until 5, I think from 3-5 is the perfect time for schools to arrange opportunities for kids to volunteer. I would assume there would be bussing similar to what is done for other city-sponsored after school programs.

 

What a slippery slope this is. You know, it's a lot more than signing up women. It didn't take long for this thread to leap from selective service registration to planning the American school day. Of course, mom and dad would both work. Bussing would be available. I've no idea how homeschoolers would fit into this scenario. I guess we'd be the ultimate rebels, if homeschooling was even legal.

 

This is my worst nightmare.

[Holly IN]

Has anyone heard his response to a questioner that asked why he "wanted to punish small businesses by raising their taxes?" His response is that he believes that "when you spread the wealth around, everyone is better off." Uh. Isn't this communist? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. If he firmly believed that, why is he living in a million dollar home? Can I have his house, and he can move into my tiny 1,200 square foot house (which currently houses 6 of us, soon to be 7). Won't "I" be better off if HE spread HIS wealth to me?

 

Ugh. I can't believe the American people are falling for this guy. Please, please, anyone who is supporting him. Please read what this guy REALLY stands for. Why is it o.k. for the GOVERNMENT to decide HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR YOUR FAMILY!

 

 

I really ditto this!!! Why are people so blind about this guy?

:glare:

Holly

[Jenny in Atl]

I really ditto this!!! Why are people so blind about this guy?

:glare:

Holly

 

Same reason folks are blind to the fact Mccain and Palin are in no way mavericks. Folks are choosing their lesser evil.

[Murphy101]

Same reason folks are blind to the fact Mccain and Palin are in no way mavericks. Folks are choosing their lesser evil.

 

well now finally something to agree about!:)

 

I'm not fond of either of them.

 

I'm less not fond of one of them.

[Spy Car]

Every adjustment in the tax code to some degree effects how much much money we pay to the government, and what we have left in our pockets.

 

This isn't new. The tax policies of the Bush years favored those at the upper end of the income scale, and resulted in a concentration of of wealth at the top, and a weakening of the middle class.

 

Taking mild steps to adjust the tax code to give some relief to a stressed middle-class is wise and sound economic policy.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

What a slippery slope this is. You know, it's a lot more than signing up women. It didn't take long for this thread to leap from selective service registration to planning the American school day. Of course, mom and dad would both work. Bussing would be available. I've no idea how homeschoolers would fit into this scenario. I guess we'd be the ultimate rebels, if homeschooling was even legal.

 

This is my worst nightmare.

 

Why wouldn't moms and dad both work? That's what it takes in our society for most people to live comfortably and women have a lot more choices now than ever before. I am lucky as all get out to have enough income to be able to stay at home!!!! Why wouldn't bussing be available? If the school is requiring the service, transportation needs to be provided for the students in some way.

 

As far as homeschoolers go, I would think that any good college would require the same of homeschoolers as public school students. Of course there are alternative colleges like Liberty University, etc. for those who choose a different path.

[Peek a Boo]

Same reason folks are blind to the fact Mccain and Palin are in no way mavericks. Folks are choosing their lesser evil.

 

 

yeah....and the only change we'll see w/ Obama is what's left under the couch cushions.... ;)

 

no mavericks.

 

no real change.

 

just more of the same.

 

no thanks.

[Peek a Boo]

Obviously we = women in the general sense.

 

But you knew that.

 

 

except that you can't assume that since Some Other We was insistent about some "right" then all of "we" should get on board w/ THIS as a natural consequence of that "right."

 

all generalizations are false :D

[LilyK]

Why wouldn't bussing be available? If the school is requiring the service, transportation needs to be provided for the students in some way.

 

 

 

Well, you would think. But our district is cutting back heavily into the school bus routes because of a severe budget crisis. I would not be surprised if bussing is eliminated alltogther. And yes, we live in a mostly 2-income demographic. On my days off, I drop off my friend's 7-year-old at the bus stop because it is now 3 miles away instead of 2 blocks away like it used to be. Obviously too far for little pumpkin to walk at 7:30 in the morning. She goes to work late on Thu and Fri when I go to work. Obviously could not be done if both parents were in Iraq!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Well, you would think. But our district is cutting back heavily into the school bus routes because of a severe budget crisis. I would not be surprised if bussing is eliminated alltogther. And yes, we live in a mostly 2-income demographic. On my days off, I drop off my friend's 7-year-old at the bus stop because it is now 3 miles away instead of 2 blocks away like it used to be. Obviously too far for little pumpkin to walk at 7:30 in the morning. She goes to work late on Thu and Fri when I go to work. Obviously could not be done if both parents were in Iraq!

 

 

UGGGGHHHH!!!!! This is terrible. And I see families with 3 and 4 cars continue to load up on material goods, but hard working people can't get a neighborhood bus for the kids. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

[Peek a Boo]

We are *all* operating under "another person's idea of citizenship". In our case that definition comes primarily through our elected representatives. The definition and rights/responsibilities associated with it have also changed over time (whether minorities or women or non-landowners or members of particular religious groups etc are as fully citizens as white landowning men of a particular ethnic heritage and religious affiliation, for instance) and continue to do so.

 

Freedom includes both privileges *and* responsibilities, and I don't see an inherent reason why a requirement of a short period of public service of some sort should not be at least up for collective consideration. Yes, there are many, many areas in which we have a great deal of autonomy, more than in many (possibly most) societies, but it is not all-encompassing. We do not have the freedom to not pay taxes, break laws and do any variety of things without incurring penalties, for example.

 

Except now we're talking about two separate things:

 

a requirement of a short period of public service of some sort should open up all sorts of options to benefit a community. that's vastly different from a mandatory military selective service sign up.

 

freedom does include responsibilities: pay your taxes and follow the laws.

 

There's a difference between obeying the law and the right to express your citizenship the way you want to.

 

I am still against mandated community service. You can be a constructive member of your community w/o being mandated to some sort of community service.

 

I do understand that some people would like to see "community service" made legally mandatory. I think that's a horrible idea that by its very definition erodes freedoms.

[LilyK]

for the kidsUGGGGHHHH!!!!! This is terrible. And I see families with 3 and 4 cars continue to load up on material goods, but hard working people can't get a neighborhood bus . OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

__________________

 

The worst part is, I see so much rampant waste in the school district. Just one of the things that really gets my goat is watering their lawns. We live in a blistering hot area. 105+ nearly all summer long. These schools have HUGE grass areas that seem to go on for a mile and they water them in the middle of the afternoon! This is just one of the many idiotic wasteful practices I can see as an outsider. I wonder how many bus routes they could add if they would just treat tax payer money the way they treat their own money.

[LilyK]

I do understand that some people would like to see "community service" made legally mandatory. I think that's a horrible idea that by its very definition erodes freedoms

:iagree: Right on the money, as usual!

[Peek a Boo]

Services that would qualify would have to be those that did not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. It would be fairly simple to regulate. Organizations could submit requests for volunteers and could be screened to keep out those that are religious/discriminatory in nature (just talking public here).

 

 

But if we have a large component of religious organizations supplying a LOT of the country's community service, why would you discriminate against one's right to work in cooperation w/ them to fulfill community service hours?

 

The BSA is certainly religious/discriminatory in nature, but they pump out a LOT of beneficial community service. But none of what they do would be good enough under your standards. That's one reason I certainly wouldn't want the gvt deciding which community service organizations "count."

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think anyone should be forced to register for selective service in the military. I'm sure Barack Obama and I probably differ there.

 

I wasn't able to graduate without a certain number of community service hours. I think that should be the gold standard for every public school and university in America- including community colleges.

 

 

hey! we agree on something :D

 

I require lots of community service for my guys ;)

[cathmom]

Why are we limiting this to high school students? Why not require everyone to do community service?

 

I don't really see it as different than obligating kids to do homework, which is what my oldest daughter's school requires. She might get excellent grades on her tests, but if she doesn't do her homework, she won't pass.

 

 

And I disagree with this. If she gets excellent grades, she should pass, even if she doesn't do her homework. At the charter school I taught at last year, one teacher wanted to give detention for not doing homework, so this policy was attempted at the beginning of the year. It was doomed to fail, mainly because most of the students carpooled and it was too complicated to give detention. But one of my students said, and I agreed with him, that the penalty for not doing homework is a bad grade on the homework. Giving detention is punishing the student twice for one thing. But then I am against homework in general.

[cathmom]

I forgot to say - did any of you hear of the book where the man evaluated how many rules adolescents have to live under? He found that high school age students have more rules/laws than any group of adults, including people in PRISON and in the military.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I forgot to say - did any of you hear of the book where the man evaluated how many rules adolescents have to live under? He found that high school age students have more rules/laws than any group of adults, including people in PRISON and in the military.

 

As a former adolescent, I have to say I'm not terribly disturbed by that finding.

 

:D

 

;)

[Amy in Orlando]

I'm opposed to mandatory community service for anyone. Simply by making it mandatory, it's not service. I don't agree with my own state's policy of requiring community service hours to qualify for a particular scholarship for this reason. It's not service, it's "another thing they have to do" (said in my best teenage-rolling-eyes voice).

 

Before I had kids I ran the state non-profit office of a national group (and all of my other work experience was in non-profits). I have to say, willing volunteers are hard enough to work with - they're great, but it's hard to reign them in without treating them like employees. The thought of trying to direct a group of teenagers or college students who really didn't want to be there (and who had picked my group as the lesser of the "evils" in their selections of non-profit groups) is a nightmare on so many fronts for the non-profit group. Most run on minimal staff and do not have the staff or time to handle this kind of thing. I cannot tell you how many hours I spent checking and "fixing" volunteer work when I was working with REAL volunteers.

 

I was just emailing with an "old" colleague of mine. (He's not really old, but I've known him forever and ever) Our political views could not be more opposed, but we both agree that mandatory service has great potential to hurt non profits more than help them. He's still working in the non-profit sector, btw.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I don't have time to read all the posts, but I'll have to go on the side against this, if only because of what I know about the military and what dh has told me.

 

The military is still very much a man's organization. Most of the men resent the presence of females, merely endure it, or take advantage of it. That is not to say that there are not gentlemen, but they are not the majority, especially in the lower ranks, which is where draftees end up.

 

All the vices that exist in the real world exist in the military, some on a worse scale: Prostitution rings, sexual favors for priveleges, getting pregnant to get out of work, harrassment.

 

As for 2 years mandatory service, what kind of work can you get out of an untrained high school graduate for two years? Training that is worth anything takes time. Untrained enlistees clean toilets, swab decks, and work in the laundry or mess halls, or even worse become cannon fodder.

 

This is my opinion. I wouldn't want my daughter, or anyone else's to be required to serve. I wouldn't even want my sons to serve the in military against their wills. I think being a productive citizen is just as much service to one's country as joining the military.

[EKS]

With absolutely no disrepect to those who have daughters and women in your family serving in the armed services, I vehemently disagree with mandatory registration for women.

~Dana

 

Frankly, I vehemently disagree with mandatory registration for *anyone*, regardless of sex, but I have always thought that if you're going to have mandatory registration, then it should be for *everyone*.

[Haiku]

I used to work for a local social service agency. We had two groups of teenagers that would come in to volunteer for us. One was a group from a Catholic high school that required service learning to graduate. One was a group from a public high school whose civics teacher required service learning to pass the class.

 

We always felt it worked out great. We'd encourage the kids to bring snacks and music and we'd have a good time. Sometimes we worked on mundane stuff (stuffing envelopes) but sometimes we were able to incorporate the kids into educational programs or fund drives or whatever. One service session was a brainstorming session where the kids threw out ideas on a slogan and logo for a fundraiser we were planning. We got some fantastic ideas, and we utilized them. Sometimes the kids staffed tables for us at events or worked as servers at community dinners we sponsored for our clients.

 

Having the kids come in was great for us ... and we were not an organization that was lacking for volunteer hours to start with. To me, the key to making service learning a good deal for all parties is to view it as an opportunity to really educate kids about the variety of ways charities operate and introduce them to the variety of ways they can be a valuable asset in volunteering ... not just worrying about keeping them busy.

 

We had several kids each year who ended up becoming regular volunteers on their own.

 

I understand people's objections to service learning. I still don't think it's a bad idea.

 

Tara

[seanda]

OK.... so... Obama wants women to register also. If this is for the Constitutional purpose for defense this seems foolish. Although women serve an increasing role in the US military there are clear limitations. Having half of those called up be women would make our military weaker.

 

IF this is for generalized service this is clearly unconstitutional, and is a huge step towards government control of the individual.

 

I also see huge consequences to American family structure if this is carried out. There is the potential for women having children early to avoid this service. And if the government does not see children as a valid excuse then the government will be in the role of raising the children which is even more scary. The family structure in this country is deteriorating. The collapse of the American family is the single greatest contributor to the moral and educational decay in this nation, in my opinion. This would only serve to further destroy the family and would put the government's nose more firmly into the business of parenting.

 

Finally if this is for general service, we either have to pay youth for work from an already deficit laden budget or we require them to serve for free as unpaid, government mandated work. Either is unacceptable.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

And if the government does not see children as a valid excuse then the government will be in the role of raising the children which is even more scary.

 

Most women I know have a babysitter or daycare available for when they work, including volunteer work. When people volunteer at our church, our church provides child care for them. No one is "raising" anyone's children.

 

When military husbands go overseas, they leave the woman to take care of the children. What is wrong with having men take on this role? Certainly we don't need to go back to the days when the only option a woman had when she had children was to stay at home- even if it made her bitter and resentful.

[chaik76]

Differing concepts of service here, I believe. Yes, charity comes from the heart. The proposal here as I see it is not charity, it is the fulfillment of one's responsibility as a citizen to contribute in a beneficial manner to one's society by serving in some capacity (whether it be teaching or military or what have you).

I see what you're saying, but even so, I disagree that anything like this should be mandated. It should be a choice. How I choose or if I choose to serve my country (in whatever way, military or non-military) should always be a choice. It is one of the reasons I disagree with mandatory community service for high schoolers.

[seanda]

Most women I know have a babysitter or daycare available for when they work, including volunteer work. When people volunteer at our church, our church provides child care for them. No one is "raising" anyone's children.

 

When military husbands go overseas, they leave the woman to take care of the children. What is wrong with having men take on this role? Certainly we don't need to go back to the days when the only option a woman had when she had children was to stay at home- even if it made her bitter and resentful.

 

I know many military families with both parents serving overseas. What would prevent this from happening??? When it is chosen they have backup plans... grandparents, etc. But if this is mandatory at any point it would be radically different.

[Nestof3]

OK.... so... Obama wants women to register also. If this is for the Constitutional purpose for defense this seems foolish. Although women serve an increasing role in the US military there are clear limitations. Having half of those called up be women would make our military weaker.

 

IF this is for generalized service this is clearly unconstitutional, and is a huge step towards government control of the individual.

 

I also see huge consequences to American family structure if this is carried out. There is the potential for women having children early to avoid this service. And if the government does not see children as a valid excuse then the government will be in the role of raising the children which is even more scary. The family structure in this country is deteriorating. The collapse of the American family is the single greatest contributor to the moral and educational decay in this nation, in my opinion. This would only serve to further destroy the family and would put the government's nose more firmly into the business of parenting.

 

Finally if this is for general service, we either have to pay youth for work from an already deficit laden budget or we require them to serve for free as unpaid, government mandated work. Either is unacceptable.

 

 

I agree with everything you've said.

[Holly IN]

OK.... so... Obama wants women to register also. If this is for the Constitutional purpose for defense this seems foolish. Although women serve an increasing role in the US military there are clear limitations. Having half of those called up be women would make our military weaker.

 

IF this is for generalized service this is clearly unconstitutional, and is a huge step towards government control of the individual.

 

I also see huge consequences to American family structure if this is carried out. There is the potential for women having children early to avoid this service. And if the government does not see children as a valid excuse then the government will be in the role of raising the children which is even more scary. The family structure in this country is deteriorating. The collapse of the American family is the single greatest contributor to the moral and educational decay in this nation, in my opinion. This would only serve to further destroy the family and would put the government's nose more firmly into the business of parenting.

 

Finally if this is for general service, we either have to pay youth for work from an already deficit laden budget or we require them to serve for free as unpaid, government mandated work. Either is unacceptable.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: I do not agree with mandatory service for high school either. Each of us have a role in society but we do not need the gov't to tell us what our role is. This is a road to socialism/communism. This is exactly what Obama wants....

 

Holly

 

Holly

[Nestof3]

Most women I know have a babysitter or daycare available for when they work, including volunteer work. When people volunteer at our church, our church provides child care for them. No one is "raising" anyone's children.

 

When military husbands go overseas, they leave the woman to take care of the children. What is wrong with having men take on this role? Certainly we don't need to go back to the days when the only option a woman had when she had children was to stay at home- even if it made her bitter and resentful.

 

What you are talking about is each individual making these decisions for themselves. A woman can choose to have someone watch her child 8 hours a day. A woman can choose to have a career and have the dad stay home.

 

This plan threatens the ability of women to choose to be the primary care giver -- of women to be the stay-at-home mom. For me, if someone else were with my child 8 hours a day, I would consider that person to be raising my child. That may not be the case for many women, and that's their decision to make.

 

It also infringes on religious beliefs.

[mommaduck]

Major stepping on both the family and religious beliefs. I wonder if they have CO camps ready? Personally, I believe this is their exact intent...destroy the family, every individual a child of the state, destroy personal belief systems.

[TXMomof4]

They don't now because it is a *volunteer* military. People take on this responsibility and *keep* it knowing what it means for their families.

 

I'd be curious to know, though, if in the current tempo inactive reservists can be recalled when their recall means they would leave a child without a parent as a primary caregiver.

 

DH says that won't happen. He's NG and if there isn't a parent or grandparents who are willing to help, the soldier doesn't go. He lost 2 soldiers this deployment because of situations like that.

[seanda]

If so, this goes back to my original assertion that it will tend to encourage women to have children younger to avoid service. And, no matter how you cut it, it is detrimental to the family structure and is against the religious beliefs of many. Not that this matters much these days. At least not if your religious beliefs are conservative.

[coffeefreak]

If so, this goes back to my original assertion that it will tend to encourage women to have children younger to avoid service. And, no matter how you cut it, it is detrimental to the family structure and is against the religious beliefs of many. Not that this matters much these days. At least not if your religious beliefs are conservative.

 

I don't understand your last statement? I agree with everything else, but could you clarify whether you mean religious conservatives would be affected or would not.

 

On a slightly different note, I think all religions are already being affected by the changes in the country. It used to be you could state religious beliefs as a reason not to serve, not to immunize, homeschool etc. Now, the laws are being changed all over that that's not "good enough." Isn't it PA that has ruled that unless you're Amish, "religious beliefs" are not enough to homeschool? What happened to Freedom of Religion? I wonder if they'll take that into consideration. OR - just thinking out loud here - maybe you could be exempt from signing up with the SS if you sign up with your church and do service that way?! See, I should be running for President!!!!:w00t:

[Dawn in OH]

Personally, I believe this is their exact intent...destroy the family, every individual a child of the state, destroy personal belief systems.

 

You're not alone.

[cathmom]

As a former adolescent, I have to say I'm not terribly disturbed by that finding.

 

:D

 

;)

 

Why not?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Why not?

 

I think having strong boundaries and rules in adolescence kept me from self-destructing.

 

I'm all for freedoms, don't get me wrong. Both my big kids have gone/are going to boarding schools for high school where they are responsible for much of their own lives and many of their own choices. But I'm not opposed to adolescents having rules.

 

Mostly that was tongue-in-cheek, though.

[sunshine]

I think that the mandatory drafting age should be 40 years old. If you are younger than 40 then you should not be drafted. Only over 40 should be drafted if in good health. Why kill the future of the country. We haven't needed a draft since the 60's. Let the ones who want to serve that are over 18 serve but when we start drafting, let the older ones go first. But that will never happen because the congress members are mostly over 40 and they sure don't want to get their hands dirty.

 

by the way I am a vehement Christian, conservative, long haired (highlighted of course), dress wearing, hardly any makeup, homeschooling, hymn singing, gardening, don't put a woman on the ballot, Believer. But don't take our young men and you sure as heck better not draft my girls. I will go first.

Because I believe in the war. My kids are too young to understand it.

[cathmom]

I think having strong boundaries and rules in adolescence kept me from self-destructing.

 

I'm all for freedoms, don't get me wrong. Both my big kids have gone/are going to boarding schools for high school where they are responsible for much of their own lives and many of their own choices. But I'm not opposed to adolescents having rules.

 

Mostly that was tongue-in-cheek, though.

 

I wasn't sure if you meant it tongue-in-cheek or not! Thanks for answering.

[sagira]

I don't think women with children should be drafted. Someone does need to keep the home fires burning.

 

I don't want my sons or daughters to fight a war unless it were a war that affects the whole world -- like a world war, or a country invading ours. I'm mostly a pacifist, but I understand the need for a war in extreme cases -- a prime example is World War II.

 

US Citizens between the ages of 25 and 40 could be asked to fight, but would not need to suffer any consequences if they don't want to. Someone who fights half-heartedly is not what is needed. JMHO.

[GreenKitty]

With absolutely no disrepect to those who have daughters and women in your family serving in the armed services, I vehemently disagree with mandatory registration for women.

 

~Dana

 

:iagree:

 

I do not agree with anyone being forced to sign up for military service, period.

[PineFarmMom]

and may you hear it with the same fair reading I'll give everyone else's response.

 

Someone has to keep the home fires burning! I believe that God designed women to be particularly good at this task. We are very, very strong in our own right, yet I believe a woman's brand of strength (generally speaking) to be more valuable here on the homefront. Of course there will be exceptions - there always are - but this is my general sentiment. It is based on my Bible-based beliefs about how God designed the roles of man and woman.

 

I wonder though... what if both mom & dad got drafted? Will there be an easy out for one of them, or will they have to scramble for child care arrangements?

 

Yes, yes, and yes!! I agree wholeheartedly.

[texascamps]

Actually, Obama's desire to not only have women sign up for selective service but also serve beside the men in combat, yes combat, was on our news last week.

 

I was outraged! Women are not equal to men. You think they are? When was the last time a woman stopped to help you when you were stranded on the side of the road? Probably never. The next time a woman stops on the side of the road and says "Hey, I'll help block your car with my car while I help change your tire." or "I'll stay here 'til the towtruck gets here," Maybe, I'll change the way I think.

 

I think women volunteering for the service is awesome, more power to them. There are a lot of physically tough women out there. But there are more physically untough women out there. To top it off there are more mentally untough women out there than untough men.

 

Case in point.....how many men really spend any time online on blogs discussing relationships, homeschooling, feelings towards Wal-mart. We worry about our children in ways the fathers cannot fathom. We worry about nutrition, weight gain, poor children in Africa, etc., until we go to sleep. The majority of men do not. In fact, if you listen to the feminists, the only reason we have war is because of men. If they believe that, then why are they so anxious to have women engage in it, just because men do? That's silly, just another bit of evidence of the knee jerk reactions of the feminist movement.

 

I would start my own movement of "Practical Feminism" if the domain namer weren't already taken.

 

Women are constantly being sold cheap goods in the form of ideas in the name of "equality". Personally, I'm not that gullible to fall for "everything" that's good for a man is good enough for a woman. Puleeeze. You never hear the men begging for equality for women. Its okay to have "Just for women." on websites and in magazines and to have "women's clubs." Men's clubs are a no-no nowadays

 

Now I'm the most liberated woman I can think of, I installed my garbage disposal, I change my oil, I fixed the heating element on my dryer, I landscaped my lawn, I mow, I paint, I installed the new sinks in my master, I laid the tile in my bathrooms, I installed my sprinkler system, I climbed a 14err last week and for three years straight I made more money than my husband in the IT (a man's world) industry. But by golly, war movies bore me, strategy games are tiresome, and if I could get the dirt and grease from under my nails I might bother getting a manicure, I would love laser hair removal and a tan and some really big blond hair and bigger boobs.

But for now I'll listen to my sons give me inch my inch detail of their Transformer battles, and listen to my daughters tell me how to accessorize better. "Mom are you really wearing your greasy sweats to the store?

 

Maybe I shouldn't worry, there is no way my daughters would make it through basic training, unless camos were pink and they could ride horses and the men didn't cuss.

 

 

 

I've heard comments from real servicemen and women, and I haven't heard one say they thought it was a good idea.

 

 

The biggest comment I've heard is that instinctually the men would be more likely to try to keep their fellow woman soldier safe than to successfully fulfill the mission. Whether its sexist or not, that's what I've heard.

 

Also, from the women servicemen concerning combat. Although it would be an honor to serve in combat next to the men, how does it make sense that when the men can't even bathe for weeks at a time and how toilet paper is scarece or non-existent that they would have a woman menstruate in the field. Are feminine products going to be a higher priority than toilet paper. How many days without a shower does it take for our odor to permeate square miles? How is that going to fly? Plus there is going to be the vulnerability of rape which is undeniable. Are they going to prescribe IUDs to prevent menses and pregnancy?

 

 

I see logistical problems and nightmares that will cost millions to figure out and millions more in lawsuits.

 

Sheryl

[Vida Winter]

Actually, Obama's desire to not only have women sign up for selective service but also serve beside the men in combat, yes combat, was on our news last week.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Sheryl. Just for fairness, do you have a news source? I just never heard the combat part.

 

In my not so humble opinion, I think Obama does not know what he's getting into here, not having served in the military himself.

 

~Dana

[Parabola]

Why is this thread being dredged up again? Is there no new mud to drag Obama through?

[Vida Winter]

Why is this thread being dredged up again? Is there no new mud to drag Obama through?

 

I didn't dredge it up but I do consider it to be one of the few clear cut issues in this race. Tax plans seem to change at least weekly; this is not a reference to a nebulous colleague, it is simply a difference of opinion on whether females should be obliged to sign up. Most people fall on one side or the other of this issue; I think it is entirely relevant with what, 11 days, until the election?

[Karen in CO]

Lets rewind back to July and the Democratic Debate people.

 

COOPER (moderator): Senator Obama, should women register for Selective Service?

OBAMA: You know, a while back we had a celebration in the Capitol for the Tuskegee Airmen, and it was extraordinarily powerful because it reminded us, there was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in combat.

And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal.

And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don’t agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they’ve got obligations to this great country as well as boys do.

 

 

Please tell me. What part of that you have a problem with. Or wait, please don't. Let old topics die.

 

I do not believe in the draft. However, last time I checked the Oath of Citizenship in the US Constitution, it didn't apply just to men.

 

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

 

 

To me, requiring the same obligations to country of my daughters as I do of my son is fair. My family has a long history of military service by both men and women. Strong, confident, capable, Americans.

 

Now this is an old issue. It is only going to go the way of all the political threads.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Karen in CO

[Erica in PA]

Actually this is new to me, and I follow politics a lot more closely than most people I know. I read about politics and the election daily, and I never heard about this. I told my mom and my sister about this issue yesterday, and they were shocked-- they had no idea that Obama plans to require women to sign up for selective service. I told my brother in law as well, just tonight, and though he also reads about the campaign and the candidate's positions regularly, he was not aware of this either. So, I don't believe that this is an old issue, in the sense that many people are not aware of this, and some people would be and are very opposed to it.

 

Erica

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

-- they had no idea that Obama plans to require women to sign up for selective service. I told my brother in law as well, just tonight, and though he also reads about the campaign and the candidate's positions regularly, he was not aware of this either.

 

Um, that would probably be because Obama DOESN'T want to require it. :banghead:

[Erica in PA]

Er.... care to explain? The article, Obama's answer to the question at the convention, and this entire thread were all centered on requiring women to register with selective service, just as men do. He said that it would "help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do." Why would you suddenly say that Obama *doesn't* want to do this very thing? After all this discussion, where it's been agreed that that is Obama's position and no one has suggested otherwise (instead his suppporters were *supporting* his stance on this)-- why are you suddenly banging your head in frustration at the notion?

 

"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal.

"And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."

 

In fact, you *yourself,* Academy, said this in this very thread:

 

"I don't think anyone should be forced to register for selective service in the military. I'm sure Barack Obama and I probably differ there."

 

 

:confused::confused::confused:

 

Erica

 

ETA: Bumping this because I really would like to know what you meant, Academy.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Erica in PA