News Should Women Be Required to Register for the Draft?

[Bystander]

(snip)There is the separate but related issue of excluding people from combat positions based on gender, and perhaps that's where the real fight's at, so to speak. (I don't actually want to have to fight with anyone, of course. I just want people to be treated fairly.)

Points to the legal crux, as well. Things to consider:

1) number of court rulings regarding pre-natal care, mom can't smoke, drink, do crack, and probably not carry the kid around on the battlefield;

2) Hague, Geneva, HRW, and who knows else are going to raise hell about exposing non-combatants (the unborn, legal status a function of which trimester, and of latest court rulings) to hostilities;

3) pregnant, or potentially pregnant, females might actually fall under the heading of biological weapons if deployed against the army of a culture which has an extreme view toward killing "children;"

4) the English legal tradition under which this question has been examined so far has managed to obscure rather than disclose such points.​

Victorian chauvinist arguments? The Red Army deployed a fair number of women in combat units in WW II, and they raised hell --- very effective. The biological differences are much more relevant within the current legal context of domestic case law, intrusions into prospective mothers' lifestyles and activities, and of international law, specifically the deliberate imposition of risk upon non-combatants.

And, no, I'm not assuming every female with a combat MOS would be conducting herself in a manner such as to guarantee pregnancy, but I am applying other court rulings regarding the uniformed services' rights to dictate the conduct of members' "private lives."

 

[honestrosewater]

It makes no sense to complain about wanting to be included in a draft and then turn around and say you don't want to fight anyone when your drafted. That would make the draft for women oh, I don't know,...discriminatory?

Okay, I'll repeat this one more time. The title really says it all. I am not seeking to join the military. I am not seeking to be drafted. I am considering whether or not requiring men but not women to register with the Selective Service is justified. I said that I didn't want to fight to clarify that I was not out looking for a fight, over this or anything else. I did not say that I wouldn't fight. I certainly will fight, in a war or any other situation, if that is what I think I should do. It does have something to do with financial aid because before a man 18-25 can apply for aid, he must register with SS. That is how I found out about the SS.

 

[Cyrus]

A man physically able, aged 18-25 must register with the SS no matter what. Nothing to do with financial aid. Gov want to make sure he is registered with the lottery before they give him money.

 

[Dawguard]

It isn't discrimination to recognize that difference and make varying requirments acordingly.

That's the definition of discrimination.

I disagree. If we don't recognize differences then we become blind to reality. Are you trying to tell me that there isn't a difference in the way men or women think? In the way their body is built? In their preferences? In their habits and interests? Any idiot will tell you there is a difference.
Now, is it fair to turn a blind eye to these differences? Of course not! Why should there be the same requirments for two sexes that are obviously not the same? This isn't discrimination, its common sense. There is a reason we have men's sports teams and women's sports teams: why men don't compete on the balance beam in gymnastics. Oh my god, men can't compete on the balance beam, perhaps I should sue for discrimination! For the military entrance exam there are different requirments for men and women. Men have to do more physical requirements then women. Discrmination!

Victorian chauvinist arguments? The Red Army deployed a fair number of women in combat units in WW II, and they raised hell --- very effective. The biological differences are much more relevant within the current legal context of domestic case law, intrusions into prospective mothers' lifestyles and activities, and of international law, specifically the deliberate imposition of risk upon non-combatants.

You can make the case that women should be allowed to enter combat situations, but that is separate from the question of whether women should be drafted. You say you want equality, but equality does not mean identical. Women can join, women can do pretty damn much anything they want, so other then complaining they can't join a direct combat unit I really don't see why you say it's discrimination. As cyrusabdollahi said, there are no benefits of regeristing, we get nothing out of it. There are no perks, there is only a penalty if we don't. If men register and women don't we both get the same opportunity. Same opportunity, doesn't that sound like equality?

 

[BobG]

There is the separate but related issue of excluding people from combat positions based on gender, and perhaps that's where the real fight's at, so to speak. (I don't actually want to have to fight with anyone, of course. I just want people to be treated fairly.)

This is a contentious issue, especially for women officers. It's hard to make General if everyone you're competing against has combat command experience and you don't. When you toss in today's peacekeeping roles, it's a pretty blurry line between combat and non-combat, which makes the issue even more controversial (the combat phase of operations in Iraq ceased back in May 2003 - no one in Iraq is serving in "direct combat").

This book, Women and Military Service, is kind of long for a reference, but the most applicable is about 20 pages (Chapter 3).

A second curious element of this debate is that, in spite of the legal and policy restriction on their assignments, women in the US military are in fact assigned to positions considered to be "combat" roles. (This situation is made possible, of course, by the military's own definitions: what does or does not constitute a "combat" role in the US armed forces is frequently subject to change.) Thus the question as to whether military women "should be" assigned to combat roles is often a moot point because they are already there doing jobs that "look like" combat roles and in many cases are even defined as such. What is very interesting here is the question of why, given this reality, the military chooses to perpetuate the assumptions that women cannot perform combat roles and are not in fact assigned to "combat" jobs.

There's still an image problem for women in the military. I think the public has a harder time dealing with women in combat than the military, but it would be silly to pretend women aren't a controversial issue even within the military. I like the quote in the "Images" section:

We have already "seen" one image of women in the military: They are invisible! A closely related perception is that if they exist, then they are men. If these images can be sustained, the underlying organizational assumption that the military is a male organization can be kept in place.

Still, it might be worth noting that the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States was revised from "I am an American fighting man..." to "I am an American..."

 

[Dawguard]

Personally I would be for allowing them to serve in combat positions. Since they are obviously capable, proven from history, it would create an equal field when it comes to promotion, pay, etc. But there is a difference between allowing them to, and forcing them to.

 

[Hurkyl]

If we don't recognize differences then we become blind to reality.
...
This isn't discrimination, its common sense.
...
Discrmination!

You finally got it right at the last word. Discrimination is the act of perceiving differences, of distinguishing between different things. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Some discrimination is fair. Some is unfair. Some is just. Some is unjust. Some is accurate. Some is imagined. But it's all still discrimination.

 

[Hurkyl]

There are no perks, there is only a penalty if we don't. If men register and women don't we both get the same opportunity. Same opportunity, doesn't that sound like equality?

No, they don't get the same opportunity. Men have the opportunity to be drafted, and women don't. Nobody said it was a good opportunity. Honestrosewater hasn't brought this issue up because she wants to get into the military -- she brought it up because her gender gives her an advantage she doesn't think is deserved.

If it helps, think of it as if a man was complaining that women can't get drafted -- but where we know for certain that he isn't just jealous or self-serving.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think all the argument about what the army can and can't do with women soldiers is beyond the point. The draft doesn't say the draftee must go into combat; in the Korean war only 10% of the men inducted into the army served in a combat zone.

It just stands to reason that every behind-the-front job a woman can do releases a man for combat, and that's as good a reason for the army to draft women as any. The refusal to draft women is just a sop to some segment of the electorate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can make the case that women should be allowed to enter combat situations, but that is separate from the question of whether women should be drafted. You say you want equality, but equality does not mean identical. Women can join, women can do pretty damn much anything they want, so other then complaining they can't join a direct combat unit I really don't see why you say it's discrimination. As cyrusabdollahi said, there are no benefits of regeristing, we get nothing out of it. There are no perks, there is only a penalty if we don't. If men register and women don't we both get the same opportunity. Same opportunity, doesn't that sound like equality?

Equality isn't just about opportunity it's also about requirements.
An interesting parallel. I read recently about a politician in Europe who was trying to institute a tax to help pay for shelters and aid for battered and abused women. The kicker being that she wanted only men to be required to pay the tax because men ofcourse are the abusers so they should be the ones paying. Does that sound like equality to you? It has nothing to do with equal opportunities, it's just an extra requirment for men that women don't have to worry about.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

 

[honestrosewater]

Thanks for the info, BobG and Bystander.

I'm not even talking about being drafted, just being put on the list of potential draftees. One thing at a time. I think it's unjustified discrimination, but I'm still not sure whether it's worth correcting. I can think of better things to spend the money on, so if there would be no consequence other than us actually being treated equally, I'd rather just let it go for now and work on something else. I think I'll just write some people and see if I can get them to let me register.

I'd like to know why some of you cast this as complaining. According to our laws, equal treatment is something that I deserve. Since when is asking for something that you deserve complaining? I can't imagine it's the manner in which I'm asking, so is it the subject matter?

Maybe allowing but not requiring women to register is the best compromise.? It would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Maybe allowing but not requiring women to register is the best compromise.? It would at least be a step in the right direction.

Probably achievable --- "best" would be to recognize that tactical doctrine no longer requires "cannon fodder" conscription. There's still the "unborn noncombatant" question that needs to be spelled out in contracts between women and the uniformed services, be it voluntary enlistment or conscription; don't know what form, or terms, such clauses would take or contain, and I certainly wouldn't wanta be in the personnel office that has to clarify such questions, run ideas past the AG, present them to congress or testify for test cases before SCOTUS.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd like to know why some of you cast this as complaining.

Because you are (or at least, nearly are)! Like "discrimination", "complaining" isn't an inherently bad thing.

Main Entry: com·plain
...
1 : to express grief, pain, or discontent
2 : to make a formal accusation or charge

 

[Dawguard]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

In a nutshell, yes. Now, before you start screaming misogynist at me, let me tell you I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong. You might say we want compelte equality, and sure in theory it isn't fair to only draft men. Sure women should be included in a draft if we want absolute equality. Unfortunatly we live in a world where there are two different sexes with different bodies and minds. It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat. I wonder if the women here saying they should be able to be drafted have ever known what real combat is. It can never be described in words, and to just glibly say that well, we need equality so we should force women into that role is simply ludicrous when viewed in real life.
Now, as for the arguments that we should draft women into noncombat role, that is rather absurd. A lot of those jobs are now being handled by outside contracters, and if we ever intered into a war that required a draft, then these jobs would be of tremendous commercial value. It would be far better to outsource them to American citizen workers in an effort to keep a stable economy. Sure women can take the job, but nobody would be drafted into it.

Discrimination is the act of perceiving differences, of distinguishing between different things. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Some discrimination is fair. Some is unfair. Some is just. Some is unjust. Some is accurate. Some is imagined. But it's all still discrimination.

Alright, I'll give you that. The problem is that discrimination has been so vilified that by simply using the word I would effectivly shoot my argument in the foot. Discrimination is automaticly associated with unfairness, so I skirted around the use of it.

 

[honestrosewater]

Because you are (or at least, nearly are)! Like "discrimination", "complaining" isn't an inherently bad thing.

Touché. I hadn't even noticed that you said complaining. I might have picked up a negative tone from other posts and assumed they were also using complaining in a negative way. (Hm, but it does look like you might have meant it in a negative way. You didn't?)

 

[vanesch]

A man physically able, aged 18-25 must register with the SS no matter what.

 

[vanesch]

My opinion is that women have fought long and hard for equality, and that means equality, not just picking and choosing the things that sound good and leaving out the bad. So long as registering for the selective service is required for men, it should be required for women. If the idea of sending women into battle bothers some people, then maybe it will give them reason to give another thought to whether the battle is really the only solution to the problem at hand. I don't think it's any less appalling to send men into battle for anything other than the most desperate situations where no other solution is available.

:!) Now that's something of an intelligent statement

I'm against drafting, but if it's done, I don't see why not EVERYBODY should be involved, including elderly people, children, women, cats, tunafish and ducks. I'd only make an exception for ants.

If the situation is such, that the collectivity to which we belong, decides that we should sacrifice our lives, then I don't see why some should, and others shouldn't be on the lottery. It is only acceptable if NOT going on war, and risking your life, will make the OVERALL situation for the collectivity so terrible, that it's worth the bet, for each individual. Then it is a collective decision that *everybody* risks his/her life, with about the same probability of dying or being disabled.
But I don't see why 80% of society should safely decide that 20% should go and risk their bones for their little confort, without taking any risk themselves.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, unt ze gestapo vil come unt take us to war!

 

[daveb]

It is discrimination for one simple reason. A man has additional legal requirements that a woman doesn't, and these requirements are solely based on sex alone. If a man who is required to register doesn't, then I'm pretty sure he can't obtain higher education financial aid. There are probably other legal or financial ramifications as well. However, since there is no draft, and registering for the draft would probably not be construed as an undue burden on males, it's a mostly irrelevant form of discrimination, so is relatively harmless. If a draft were to be instituted, then it's a grave form of discrimination, since it violates equal protection (a man might possibly be forcibly prevented from improving his quality of life).

 

[Grogs]

I think men and women should be treated equally. By that, I mean that neither should have to register for SS. I think it's a dinosaur that has outlived its usefulness, and frankly, isn't compatible with a democratic society. Since that option isn't really on the table, I guess I'd go with 'allowed, but not required.'

 

[Dawguard]

It is discrimination for one simple reason. A man has additional legal requirements that a woman doesn't, and these requirements are solely based on sex alone.

Hmm...the same argument again and again, with the same simple reasoning. Need I quote my entire last post, or can't you get past words? You want unilateral equality, give women balls so they can feel the pain of being kicked in the groin, and give men wombs so they can feel the pain of childbirth. Genetically engineer an asexual species and you can have pure equality.
Now, I'm not saying that either men or women are better then the other. Perhaps I haven't been explaining it well, or perhaps you can't get past simple statements. This type of "bumber sticker" arguments get us nowhere, and is akin to children saying, 'I'm right': 'no I'm right'! Now, I've given you my reasons why I think that it isn't unfair, so please either refute them or give a new argument, don't just parrot what other people have said here.

 

[mattmns]

That makes for good bumber sticker arguments, but we need to deal with larger issues and more facts. Tell me why they should be required. I have given you my opinion why they shouldn't be. If you respectfully dissagree, please state why.

Also, I'm not saying I don't agree with it for the same reasons as the DoD. Whether they think it is right or wrong is irrelevant to its state as such.

Sorry I was not directing my comment toward you (although it does look that way, I had just not seen your post).

To elaborate on my argument: Women are allowed to serve now, so I must assume that they can do the job just as well as men, if they cannot, then they should not be allowed to serve. So since they can do the job just as well as men, they should be required just as men are.

 

[Dawguard]

I'm against drafting, but if it's done, I don't see why not EVERYBODY should be involved, including elderly people, children, women, cats, tunafish and ducks. I'd only make an exception for ants.

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages. Need I point out how stupid that is? I don't think so. Think about it in real life, please! All you have done so far is through ideas and words together. Fine, in theory, but theories are worth jack crap unless they are practicly implentable.

 

[Dawguard]

To elaborate on my argument: Women are allowed to serve now, so I must assume that they can do the job just as well as men, if they cannot, then they should not be allowed to serve. So since they can do the job just as well as men, they should be required just as men are.

Ah, I've admitted that women can do the job just as well. In fact, I think they should be allowed to be in direct combat roles. However, just becuase some women can doesn't mean it's practical to draft any women. I wonder, what is the closest you have come to the military? How well do you know war? Let me tell you, in a battle it is foolish to expect the average women of the street to act the same as a man. Don't call this misogyny, call it common sense. I know it really isn't a good judge of what real combat is like, but watch movies like We Were Soldiers, or Saving Private Ryan. Hell, watch any war movie, most do an OK job. Then look at your daughter, your wife or your sister. Now tell me you think she should be forced into a situation like that. Just becuase on paper it sounds like equality? That reason is as flimsly as a paper boat trying to cross the Atlantic with a full load of immigrants. Why is the idea of equality a good enough reason to force women into the infrantry?

 

[Hurkyl]

Don't call this misogyny, call it common sense. I know it really isn't a good judge of what real combat is like, but watch movies like We Were Soldiers, or Saving Private Ryan. Hell, watch any war movie, most do an OK job. Then look at your daughter, your wife or your sister. Now tell me you think she should be forced into a situation like that.

This sounds more like an emotional reaction than "common sense". I also imagine that many (most?) people would find the notion that their son, husband, or brother be forced into war to be equally repugnant, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

P.S. common sense is often wrong, and is certainly not agreed upon by all -- if your only argument is that it's "common sense", then you don't have an argument.

 

[honestrosewater]

It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat.

By what argument?

I wonder if the women here saying they should be able to be drafted have ever known what real combat is. It can never be described in words, and to just glibly say that well, we need equality so we should force women into that role is simply ludicrous when viewed in real life.

First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?), and I don't think either of us have been glib. You, however, are being glib, in my opinion, in accusing us of being glib. I am taking this very seriously, and I find your attitude disrespectful.

Second, it is not required of men that they "know what real combat is", so I don't see how that is relevant.

Whether you look at service as a privilege or a burden, what in the law says that it shouldn't belong to women just as much as it does to men?

You can keep your pity if that's your motivation here.

 

[Dawguard]

This sounds more like an emotional reaction than "common sense". I also imagine that many (most?) people would find the notion that their son, husband, or brother be forced into war to be equally repugnant, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

Emotional, unintended and true, but that doesn't negate its truth. If you want a unemotional argument, watch them. Then forget about your family, and consider any women you know actually doing it. I wasn't trying to ellicit the idea of repugnace, simply reality. Do you honestly think the average women could fight in a battle to the equal skill of men? My question wasn't for emotion, but to judge their skills. Now, just because I say this I fear that you will call it discrimination, misogyny and write if off as untrue. That is because I think that you think about everything in ideas and ideals. Look beyond that, and try to think about the results of this draft. Don't tell me it should happen, tell me what would happen if it happened. That is the only judge of whether it's right or wrong.

P.S. common sense is often wrong, and is certainly not agreed upon by all -- if your only argument is that it's "common sense", then you don't have an argument.

No, it isn't common sense, its recognizing reality. Common sense is actually your argument, using simple one-two logic. I'm not advocating common sense, I'm advocating practical reason.

 

[Dawguard]

By what argument?

Simply by not looking at ideas, but by looking at reality. It isn't arrogance to recognize that men are better fighters. One, their temperments are better suited to destruction, and two their bodies are better suited to it. You cannot deny this, it is proven by phsycology and, well, I don't even need to point out the proof for the second reason.

First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?), and I don't think either of us have been glib. You, however, are being glib, in my opinion, in accusing us of being glib. I am taking this very seriously, and I find your attitude disrespectful.

I'm sorry to sound disrespectful, it wasn't my intent. What I meant by glibly is that people here seem to just say, "men have to, women should have to". That's extremely simplistic reasoning, and is very is to simply spew out. That is glib, and I don't know how much you've looked into this. Once again, I sorry if it sounded disrespecful.

Second, it is not required of men that they "know what real combat is", so I don't see how that is relevant.

I didn't say they needed to know what real combat was before joining or being drafted. What I said was that you should understand real combat before saying women should be forced into it. Surely this is logical?

Whether you look at service as a privilege or a burden, what in the law says that it shouldn't belong to women just as much as it does to men?

Well, in law it is the Selective Service Act that is saying it. And, in my opinion, should and will continue to say it.

You can keep your pity if that's your motivation here.

Thank you, I will. It is not my only motivation. My promary motivations are two: to persuade you of the truth as I see it, and out of fear.

 

[pattylou]

...their bodies are better suited to it. You cannot deny this, it is proven by phsycology and, well, I don't even need to point out the proof for the second reason.

I have no idea what the second reason is. I'm scratching my head and wondering ... Periods? Pregnancy? Sex appeal? ?? Maybe I misunderstand the end of the quote above.

But anyway, the reason I decided to post is because your overall reasoning is wrong.

Any trait is exhibited in a population, along a spectrum. Destructive tendencies vary from one person to the next. Whereas destructive tendencies may or may not *tend* to correlate with one gender or another, there will be overlap between the two genders. In other words, some women will be more destructive than some men, and some men will be more destructive than some women.

The same holds for any trait, whether it is strength, intelligence, stealth, emotionality, aggressiveness, etc. In short, some women are better suited to the armed services than some men, and vice versa.

It is actually fine to say that there is a bar that must be attained to enter the service, and that bar may well favor one gender or the other. In other words, you *can* say that a person has to have a certain psychological disposition in order to serve, or a certain endurance or strength or targetting capability with a rifle. But to say that men can serve and women can't, and to put that under the argument that men are better suited to it, is overly simplistic.

Who would you rather have at your side? A crybaby weak male with allergies and esteem issues, or a strong unemotional woman whose a dead shot on an enemy target? Both types of people exist.