# Ban on combat lifted = women registering for Selective Service? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721 "2015-09-02T17:34:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/21 "2015-12-04T20:21:03Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Conscription is slavery in exactly the same way that taxation is theft. Paraphrasing someone more elequent than me A country in danger doesn’t need a draft to protect itself. If it is in danger and still needs a draft, then there is nothing worthwhile left to protect. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/22 "2015-12-04T20:38:12Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Assuming a state should have standing procedures to enslave its citizens, then sure, put women on the list too. I think it’s more likely to end than it is to include women, though. Registration only exists because of bureaucratic inertia anyways; it should have ended (again, assuming it’s something that should ever exist) with the Cold War. You pay taxes. You are already partially “enslaved.” Women need to be required to sign up if men are. Otherwise that’s institutional sexism. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/23 "2015-12-04T22:11:45Z")
I think it’s high time to abolish the draft; if we are going to have a giant military-industrial complex haring off to bomb some other country to rubble every few years, I’d rather it not be staffed by hastily-trained people who don’t want to be there. > [@octopus](#): > > Women need to be required to sign up if men are. Otherwise that’s institutional sexism. The fact that the draft excludes women is the result of a bias against women, not against men. The original idea of excluding women from combat is based on your standard anti-woman sexism: women are weak and dependent, and therefore need to be protected and sheltered by men, and they do not have the mental and physical toughness required for combat positions. A lot of the so-called “privileges” that women are accused of having are predicated on a world-view in which women are innately and unavoidably fragile, helpless and incompetent; men _have_ to do the hard and dangerous stuff because only they have the necessary capabilities. And then men are taught to stake their self-worth on being the protector and provider, which reinforces that world-view. So yes, sex restrictions on the draft are sexist, but not in the direction I think you mean. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/24 "2015-12-04T22:28:29Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > [https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft](https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft) From the majority opinion: > [@](#): > > In the case before it, however, the Court noted: > > [T]he different treatment of men and women naval officers . . . reflects, not archaic and overbroad generalizations, but, instead, the demonstrable fact that male and female line officers in the Navy are not similarly situated with respect to opportunities for professional service. Appellee has not challenged the current restrictions on women officers’ participation in combat and in most sea duty. > > Id. at 508. In light of the combat restrictions, women did not have the same opportunities for promotion as men, and therefore it was not unconstitutional for Congress to distinguish between them. I suspect a new case would overturn the earlier ruling. Not just for the above, since I doubt it was the only reason for the ruling. But times have significantly changed since then, and I suspect that all 3 female justices would vote to overturn. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/25 "2015-12-04T23:03:17Z")
For now? No. See, you have to understand WHO has been pushing to let women into combat. It isn’t ordinary enlisted women- they just want to make a living or save money for college. It’s female OFFICERS who want to get into combat, because combat experience is very helpful if you want to get promoted. So long as the ordinary females in the military don’t want combat, women won’t be drafted. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/26 "2015-12-05T03:01:51Z")
Women should definitely be subject to the draft to the same extent men are. I believe the “same extent” should be zero, but no matter what the number, it should be equal. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/27 "2015-12-05T03:37:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Paraphrasing someone more elequent than me > > A country in danger doesn’t need a draft to protect itself. If it is in danger and still needs a draft, then there is nothing worthwhile left to protect. Eloquent doesn’t mean correct. This is one such case, unless you think the American Revolution, WW2, and the Civil War weren’t worth fighting. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/28 "2015-12-05T03:59:51Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > A country in danger doesn’t need a draft to protect itself. > > If it is in danger and still needs a draft, then there is nothing worthwhile left to protect. Let me see if I understand. You think that a nation having a better human rights record can more easily get men (and women) to volunteer for its armed forces than a nation with a poor human rights record. Is that a fair implication to draw from your post? If so, do you have any evidence, or is this just wishful thinking? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2015, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/29 "2015-12-05T11:25:24Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Has the ban been lifted or is this hypothetical? Sure, women do actually fight, get injured, and die in combat but I thought most frontline combat positions were still disallowed for them. Where and when? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/30 "2015-12-07T04:47:35Z")
Just because women have been approved for combat service only means that those women who are rather abnormally strong or otherwise fit will be suited for it. That does not mean that women from the general population would be similarly suited. Registering women would give the draft boards (if it is ever reenacted) a large pool of women to weed through who are unsuited for combat. Keep registration (not a draft) but do not require women to register. This country should be ashamed if it _forces_ a 19 year old petit girl go to boot camp. A man? Well, if it thinks a draft is needed, then us guys need to pony up. The necessity of the draft is one for the elected representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/31 "2015-12-07T10:05:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Keep registration (not a draft) but do not require women to register. This country should be ashamed if it _forces_ a 19 year old petit girl go to boot camp. A man? Well, if it thinks a draft is needed, then us guys need to pony up. In other words, gender inequality. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/32 "2015-12-07T10:20:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Just because women have been approved for combat service only means that those women who are rather abnormally strong or otherwise fit will be suited for it. That does not mean that women from the general population would be similarly suited. Registering women would give the draft boards (if it is ever reenacted) a large pool of women to weed through who are unsuited for combat. > > Keep registration (not a draft) but do not require women to register. This country should be ashamed if it _forces_ a 19 year old petit girl go to boot camp. A man? Well, if it thinks a draft is needed, then us guys need to pony up. The necessity of the draft is one for the elected representatives. If women are to have the privileges of full citizenship then they should also have equal responsibilities. Anything less makes women second class citizens and lesser human beings. “Petit” men who are drafted may well be rejected for simple lack of ability to do the job required, or assigned to duties which they are capable of doing. Likewise, women who are drafted would be assigned duties that fit their actual abilities. Due to biology you’ll have a lot fewer women qualifying for, example, infantry but it’s not like all men are capable of doing those jobs, either. You seem to presume the default state for men is “suitable for combat” but plenty aren’t. The military always has to screen draftees and weed out those unsuited. Heck, they have to do the same for volunteers as well. I have long wondered why it is somehow more acceptable for a man to come back home in a box than a woman. Shouldn’t it be equally appalling for either gender? Aren’t they all equally human beings? ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/33 "2015-12-07T10:56:55Z")
This is one of the counter-feminist memes that makes logical sense, not that you can use logic to defend against an emotional attack like feminism is. The argument is that if women want be considered equal to men, receiving equal benefits to men, it is unfair for them to get special treatment such as not being asked to register for the draft and face dying in wars. It is not equality at all if they get to have equal benefits without paying equal costs. Naturally, one argument people make is that feminists don’t care about equality - they just want more for women, with no limit to how much “more” is, and they get it by arguing inequality. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/34 "2015-12-07T11:49:39Z")
Requiring both men and women to registers for selective service and to be equally subject to a draft is not “counter-feminism”. It is, depending on how you look at it, either genuine feminism (the notion that women are equal to men, which is how the movement started and not as some emotional attack) or just simple fairness. People who were advocating for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970’s were not fleeing from the implication that women might be drafted as a result, they simply acknowledged that it was a logical consequence of eliminating gender discrimination. It is a tragedy that extremists have been able to derail what started as a movement for equality and made it equally sexist as societal defaults from 100 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/35 "2015-12-07T11:51:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Keep registration (not a draft) but do not require women to register. This country should be ashamed if it _forces_ a 19 year old petit girl go to boot camp. A man? Well, if it thinks a draft is needed, then us guys need to pony up. The necessity of the draft is one for the elected representatives. My understanding is that the draft is just the first step – the draftee was evaluated for suitability, and only those deemed suitable actually went to war. Do you have a reason to believe that would not be the process in the future, regardless of gender? Why should gender be the differentiator rather than suitability? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/36 "2015-12-07T13:11:16Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > This is one of the counter-feminist memes that makes logical sense, not that you can use logic to defend against an emotional attack like feminism is. The argument is that if women want be considered equal to men, receiving equal benefits to men, it is unfair for them to get special treatment such as not being asked to register for the draft and face dying in wars. It is not equality at all if they get to have equal benefits without paying equal costs. Naturally, one argument people make is that feminists don’t care about equality - they just want more for women, with no limit to how much “more” is, and they get it by arguing inequality. Cite that this is a feminist/not-feminist thing? I would guess that most feminists are anti-draft in general, but I’d be surprised if most feminists are arguing men should be drafted and women not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/37 "2015-12-07T13:18:04Z")
I wonder whether we’d draft folks who happen to be pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/38 "2015-12-07T13:55:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Keep registration (not a draft) but do not require women to register. This country should be ashamed if it _forces_ a 19 year old petit girl go to boot camp. A man? Well, if it thinks a draft is needed, then us guys need to pony up. The necessity of the draft is one for the elected representatives. Girls and women are neither helpless beings nor more precious than boys and men. With the ban on combat lifted, women should be held equally responsible as men to registering for and being selected in a draft, because women have just as much at stake. Can every woman succeed as a soldier? Of course not. But that is not the measure we use for anything else. The draft is monstrous, but it should be equal opportunity monstrousness. Our laws should treat us equally, even if the law itself is a bad one. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/39 "2015-12-07T14:16:41Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I wonder whether we’d draft folks who happen to be pregnant. Why not? Of course, they would not have to report for boot camp/training/duty until after their baby is delivered and they have recovered from labor and delivery, but that’s simply a temporary deferment. We should probably have some sort of rule that both parents in a family can’t be drafted, but which one gets picked should be random chance out of fairness. Women should no more be exempted for being a parent of a young child than a man should be. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721/40 "2015-12-07T14:57:04Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > I disagree with this. If we’re going to have armed forces (and of course we are and should), then I think some large percentage should be draftees. I think it would damp down the urge to send American troops out if everyone potentially had some skin in the game. _The World According To **Folacin** ’s Thoughts:_ The US got out of Vietnam in 1968 or thereabouts. _The World According To Actual Reality:_ Another theory down the drain. > [@](#): > > I make this proposal as a male to old to serve (56) Imagine my surprise. > [@](#): > > but with three sons of prime draft age. Really, are they _that_ annoying to have around? > [@](#): > > And if I got to set the rules, I’d adjust the lottery so that the children (draft the woman too) of the rich and powerful would pick up extra points, instead of deferments. As long as you’re wishing, would you like a pony? > [@Grumman](#): > > This is a terrible idea for so many reasons. > > 1. You assume that those making the decision to go to war aren’t assholes like Prince Harry who think conscription builds character. > > 2. You assume that those making the decision to go to war are _less_ likely to do so if they can supplement consensual recruitment with involuntary servitude. > > 3. You assume that even if these were true, they are worth the cost of bringing back involuntary servitude. 1. You assume that success in war is not all that important, and thus can be left to random mokes off the street rather than dedicated professionals. 2. You assume that soldiering is somehow fundamentally different from any of the other tasks of civilization that are difficult, dirty, generally unpleasant, but nevertheless essential (e.g. firefighting, sewer maintenance, etc), all of which are left without question to volunteer labor and work just fine on that basis. > [@](#): > > If you want people like George W. Bush to have skin in the game when they take the nation to war, _do that_. Throw out the precedent established with Nixon and Ford that the President will not be held legally accountable for crimes against the American people, and start holding them _personally_ accountable when they start clusterfucks like the Iraq War. True, but almost as unrealistic as **Folacin** ’s idea of a draft that actually touched the upper crust. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-combat-lifted-women-registering-for-selective-service/729721.md?page=3)