I'm curious......why shouldn't women be drafted too?

[StPaulieGirl]

Mar '69?  Perhaps you don't remember why it was smart to enlist before you got drafted.  If you enlisted, you could more or less pick your preferred branch of service.  If you waited until you ended up drafted, you were basically cannon fodder.  

I'm sure you are a loving, nurturing, disciplinarian parent.  Why do you feel the need to mention that?  What does that have anything to do with making selective service gender equal?

Why don't you listen instead of shooting off your mouth with your various twisted theories, manipulations and falsehoods concerning subjects you've only read about or think you know about. You've been watching too much TV.

Don't you really mean, why won't I agree with you?  Sorry, I don't agree with you.  I've discussed this same issue with more reasonable people in the recent past, and I have to admit they know what they're talking about.  These guys recently served in Desert Storm where there were female soldiers among them.  No one said they were goldbricking, but they simply weren't able to keep up.  I'll take a reasonable person's word for it.  I also know a handful of Viet Nam vets.  The subject of women in combat never came up, however.  Well there was the time that Tom and his platoon were in some village and a young lady pushed a baby stroller full of explosives towards them.  Does that count?  

To them you would have been a cockroach and they would have gladly planted a shinny steel toed booth right in your mouth.

[p]Watch it with the projection,  there Davy boy.  Our TI's in the Air Force didn't wear steel toed boots.  In fact, looking back, they were pretty decent when they weren't pulling out their hair.  The worst thing that happened to me was that I caught the measles and spent an extra 2 weeks in basic.   Lol, I still remember the obstacle course.  Our TI was this black guy in his late 50's.  He almost cried watching us trip all over ourselves.  I did have an advantage over some of the girls in my squadron.  I was in marching band and baton twirling groups since I was 10...so I knew how to march with out being accused of having a pole up my ass.  I was also a tomboy.  Still, climbing up ropes left me and half the girls laying in a muddy ditch laughing.  No upper body strength :-(

How's your blood pressure, Davy?  Hanging in there?

Anyway, I spent my time in Supply, inventory control, where I couldn't do much damage )(

I figured that in this modern world, what with gyms and weightlifting for women, that they could do better than we could back in the day.  

Is a combat zone anyplace for a female ? Absolutely not ! Should females be drafted for combat duty ? Absolutely but only if males ARE NOT drafted or serving in the same combat zone.

Ummm Dr. Suess, clean up in aisle 6...

[MKx2]

[em]Perhaps you don't remember why it was smart to enlist before you got drafted. If you enlisted, you could more or less pick your preferred branch of service. If you waited until you ended up drafted, you were basically cannon fodder.[/em]

*********

Having been at the "right" age when all this was going on ... enlisting only gave you perhaps the choice of service, but certainly not any guarantee of not becoming "cannon fodder" ... now that's a rather distasteful term SPG.  

Sorry, but I do find that term rather offensive - I lost a lot of good friends to that conflict - including my first husband.  We were just kids when we married - he was already in the Army with a supposed "shining career" ahead of him, as an voluntary enlistee with exceptionally high scores on everything.  That is until they decided to deploy him there in December of '67, six months after we married.  He was killed during the Tet Offensive of January '68.

Cannon fodder indeed ... him and so very many others.

[StPaulieGirl]

It is distasteful, and I apologize to you.  I tend to get a little bent out of shape when arguing with a certain poster.  

Granted, I was in grade school during the Viet Nam war, however I've talked with vets over the years who used that term themselves.  They're the ones who either were relieved that they enlisted in the Navy, or regretted getting drafted into the Army.  

The first vet I met was when I was still in HS.  He was on permanent disability due to a metal plate in his head.  His buddy stepped on a land mine, and he got hit in the head with fragments.  He was cool, just wanted to talk, so my friends and I hung out with him and smoked pot.  There were a couple of guys that were friends of my ex's.  One of them was the one who joined the Navy.  The other was drafted into the Army, got through it by the skin of his teeth to be spit on when he got home.  Nice.  My best friend from HS married a man who was a fighter pilot...and old enough to be her daddy.  She was his third wife.  She couldn't deal with the flashbacks, so she divorced him.  No kids.

The most recent vet I've met was a neighbor of my daughter's.  He finally got a settlement from the VA.  Apparently one of his testicles was shot off, and I personally think he was sprayed with Agent Orange.  Whew.  He recently moved to another state.  He can tell some stories.

These guys used the term cannon fodder because of the total lack of leadership for the most part over there.  I'm trying to be politically correct, but from what's been said, the majority of commanding officers didn't know their rear ends from a hand grenade.  They put the soldiers under their command in danger....hence cannon fodder :-(

I didn't mean to bring back bad memories for you, and I'm sorry for that.  Your husband was an honorable man.

[MKx2]

One thing that most don't seem to "get" about this entire conflict ...

(Understand I'm not in agreement with the situation that took place over there) ... we sent out young men in droves and they were getting killed off in droves.  Many of the CO's over there were but boys with little to no combat experience.  IMVHO ... it wasn't the fault of many of the COs that their men were put in danger.  They had no battle training, many had field promotions, and they were fighting an enemy with little experience of how they operated ... ugly ugly ugly.

Still ... cannon fodder is a term used by those who survived.  While I understand their sheer disgust and hatred at what our government did, I'm sure those who were the "fodder-ees," now with no voice, would object to their counterparts use of the term.

Hey SPG, it's okay - you meant me no harm ... but maybe the next time you talk to one of our Vets if the term comes up, you'll remember me and think of our men in a more honorable term.   Every single on of our Veterans deserves that.

[sweetnsad]

"Do you have something to offer from Canada?"

Now, how am I supposed to take that?  Are you being sarcastic?

To be perfectly honest Davy, no, I don't have anything to offer from Canada...I do not have much knowledge on "drafting" and so forth seeing as I'm only 29...My only real "adult" experience on war is the one that is being fought now in Iraq...and yes, I think women should be drafted as well as men.  But that's JMO.

I read the above posters and I just wanted to comment that it seems to be getting WAY off topic...Stick to the subject at hand, that's all.

[Wishing]

Welcome to SPARC, the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center.

"SPARC's goal is to ensure that children of divorce continue to have meaningful relationships with both parents, regardless of marital status. We advocate on behalf all non-custodial parents (especially fathers) to ensure they get equitable treatment in court and continued access to their children. In addition, we work to promote gender equality in Divorce and Custody issues".

Partially fearing the wrath that may come following my post, I will proceed regardless. This site is a wonderful resource. Your post, however, doesn't appear to address SPARC's goal or address Father's Issues under this section.

You do provide helpful ideas and direction for people in need of help, but this post belongs elsewhere in my opinion. My only goal with my response is try and keep the goals and assistance of this site on target and not lose any passers by who are in need.

[Brent]

>Partially fearing the wrath that may come following my post, I
>will proceed regardless. This site is a wonderful resource.
>Your post, however, doesn't appear to address SPARC's goal or
>address Father's Issues under this section.

I'm all out of wrath. ;)

Maybe I should have posted this on the General Issues board, but I'd say it falls under #3 below:


Mission Goals
The SPARC Web Site is a 501(c)(3) Non-profit organization with one primary goal, which is to ensure that children of divorce have access to both parents, regardless of marital status.

To accomplish this, we have several specific secondary goals, which include:

[ol][li]assisting non-custodial parents (especially fathers) in obtaining fair and equitable custody arrangements;

[li]disseminating information on Parenting Evaluations (also called Custody Evaluations);

[li]raising awareness of issues that fathers and non-custodial parents face.[/ol]

If the Draft isn't a Men's issue, what is?


>You do provide helpful ideas and direction for people in need
>of help, but this post belongs elsewhere in my opinion.


Like I said, perhaps I should have posted it on the General Issues board, but it didn't seem to fit there. I'm open to suggestions, though. Where would you put it?



>My only goal with my response is try and keep the goals and
>assistance of this site on target and not lose any passers by
>who are in need.

I understand, and I'm not arguing with you. I just didn't know what other board was more suited to the content of the article.

[MKx2]

Personally I happen to think this IS a Father's issue, since it is men in general, fathers and sons, who are affected by this.

JMO though.

[Wishing]

In response to Brent and Mk2x, I don't feel it's an issue for this Board. Certainly it is an issue for discussion, but not on SPARC. I don't see the purpose on the post with respect to this site.

This site seems to be filling up with alot of issues and backtalk which doesn't seem to fit the purpose of SPARC. I'm not upset about this or Brent's post, but to me at least, the support and information this site has provided seems to be getting diverted. This site helped me out when I was going through the bleeding stage of my divorce and forced visitation trauma. I just hope this place keeps it's direction so to help the many who need it.

I will refrain from further replies as it would defeat my point entirely.

[Indigo Mom]

Why don't you sit down and write a list of topics we're "allowed" to post about and respond to.  That way, we won't offend people like you who come here.

BTW...what's your story?  I don't recall reading anything custody related written by you...but I could have missed it.