http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/d1cfa80c729984c2/8afc01e5e1474cfa%238afc01e5e1474cfa

equality between men and women in the draft....using the russians as a base for discussion...several voices involved, arguing about it

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/wic.asp

army bibliography of sources pertaining to the topic

http://www.keytlaw.com/F-4/draft.htm

detailed decription about how exactly the draft worked during 'Nam, how people went from registering to finding themselves on the front lines, and what some of the ways to avoid being sent were...acccording to one man's personal, hands-on experience

http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2003/01/msg00042.html

unclear but with excellent links to info about the draft and how it functions from a few vets' conversation

http://atheism.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=42263

women cant go because we need them for the population. Far fewer men are required, if it comes down to the need for survival of our nation's people.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=158

wants draft to be more than just military...brings in a whole other element to it...also deals with it in light of how europe has handled some of the same decisions...from individual commentators viewpoints

http://www.liquidgeneration.com/Media/Sabotage/Youve_been_Drafted_Sabotage/

this just shows how so many people view the draft in a complete negative light. This is a link for a "practical joke" that you can sent to their friends to make them think they have been called to be drafted....a scare tactic....and an effective one...this is the effect the draft has on many....

http://www.hasbrouck.org/draft/whattodo.pdf

some people just hate and dread the draft so much. this is a whole document of how to avoid the militaryt draft, exploit the loopholes and outright break the law with its justifications. they are out there, but that is point...basically, it is saying to organize and get rid of the draft altogether.

http://www.answers.com/topic/conscription

quite a ways down this page, after several online encyclopedia entries about what "conscription" is, comes one section entitled "The Gender Issue." This is the part that is pertinent, obviously, to our work. it talks about drafting women from a global perspective, the way it has been handle in the past, and how feminists, egalitarians, and masculinists view draft and their supporting reasons.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm

A lot of the pro and against women arguments are clearly expressed in this cite, and i thought i would quote a long section of it below so that i would remember where it is for my paper. Interesting points made early halfway through last century and still very similar circumstantially today.


"Objection to the conscription of women . . . ought not to proceed from the assumptionthat chilvalry requires the shielding of women from hardship. There is no reasonfor objecting to it either on the basis of special privilege of sex or of the exemptionof anybody from the hard requirements of our time.
However, the women of the WCOC did oppose conscription of women on a gender specific basis. Military or civilian conscription, they said, would place women, as a sex, back under the complete control of men. In the military or in a war industry job women would be told where to go, how to work, where they could live, and how much they could be paid. WCOC director, Mildred Scott Olmsted wrote on this issue of male domination in 1943:
Women have not fought for and won their right to be free from thedictation of their fathers and husbands as to when and where andhow they may work only to turn that right over to their neighbors . . .reactionaries would require all women with children to remain athome and allow no woman without children to do so.
Olmsted used the same feminist argument in a radio broadcast the following year. This time she focused on women's loss of freedom in the armed forces:
Women have fought for years for the right to be free from thedomination of men - the right to be educated, to vote, to marry ornot to marry as they want, to work . . . . The army gives [women] . . .opportunity to do only minor jobs. They would have no realinfluence in the army, and no freedom, and they know it.
However, the argument that conscription would place women under male domination was not emphasized in WCOC's campaign. This feminist line of reasoning against the conscription of women did not appear in any of their printed literature. It seems likely that their second gender specific argument against drafting women brought more support to their cause. In the broadcast quoted above, where Olmsted gave, what we may cite as feminist reasons for opposing a women's draft, she also emphasized a more traditional role for women:
Women are naturally and rightly the home makers, producers,and conservers of life . . . . They play their part during the war by"keeping the home fires burning until the boys come home" by carryingon the services that hold the community together.
Women were charged with maintaining the "American Way of Life," while their male relatives were off fighting. This role for women was complex. Women were expected to preserve the home and the family the way they had been before the war. A propaganda film produced by the Office of War Information in 1943 included a soldier who made the following statement which illustrated this as part of government policy:
"I'm glad you haven't turned the old house into just a headquarters, Mom;I'm glad you're keeping it our home, the way it was. That's the way I feelabout it out here, that is also part of a woman's war job--keeping up the home,the homes we're fighting for, that some day we want to come back to."

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/conscription/women-draftees.html

This article is great! Beth, definitely check this out. It includes info about other nations that draft women...who they are and a little about how this works for them. It also contains links to more info about conscription. I'm definitely excited about this site, although it is another blatantly biased source...it has some good facts in it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

this article was proved "false", saying that the military draft was supposed to take place by 2005. it hasnt, but it does provide good background details on the how people used to evade the draft and what has been done to prevent people from fleeing to college and canada the next time around. I will definitely use some of those statistics in my paper.

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/woman/dialogue_opinion_letters/pns_draft_is_coming_0804.asp

Ann Bassett talks from the perspective of a women who does not want to be drafted and wants to make people aware of the bills that are trying to be passed currently. She does not think that she could fight and would therefore be a threat on the battlefield more than a help.

jane loves tarzan

http://www.janelovestarzan.com/?p=492

this is a personal blog that brought up the draft issue, along with several people who responded and how they feel about it...all female from what I can tell. This shows a very real and interesting perspective on how average females view their rights and duties on a idealistic level verses on an actual, realistic level.

Generally, they think women should go to war, as part of equality that has been fought for, it should be our responsibility to share in fighting. However, none of them actually wanted to go to war or thought they would be any good at fighting if it came to that. Not sure how well informed they actually are about the issue at all, but this constitutes their general beliefs.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

This author seems to present all his facts realistically, and seems to have had many years of dealing with draft scares that inevitably arise. He outlines the process for changing the legislation, the likelihood of the involvement of women in the next draft, and what it would look like if this unlikely event (according to his point of view) were to occur.

A good source of factual information, rather than emotional reaction. Obviously supporting the said that there will not be another imminent draft but that if there was one, its very likely that women will have to serve in some capacity.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/comingdraft10jan07.shtml

This man is highly emotional and underinformed. He believes the entire government is involved in a conspiracy to end America. He does have some true facts and interesting insights, when they can be salvaged from the emotionally charged and biased words in which they are entangled. An interesting viewpoint, to be sure...one of many bloggers with an opinion and little power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15805957/

This article from MSNBC discusses how the draft is important, and noone should be in support of having a war without being in support of the draft. If it's really worth fighting for, argues this article, then its worth being willing to be drafted to help advance the cause.

This article is quite biased in its nature and shows one side of the arguement. Good for pro-draft and is all for women being drafted to give their support. Also, this broadens the definition of draft from simply going over and being involved in combat to just serving the country, even stateside, as necessary.