Is there any good reason why women still don’t have to register for the draft when they turn 18? I can’t think of a single one. While there are still (I believe) some positions in the military that women can’t fill, the majority of jobs can be filled by either sex. The only objection I can think of would be a case where both the mother and father in a family would be called up, leaving the kids in the lurch. But even in that case, there are so many draft exemptions anyways that it wouldn’t be a big deal to offer an exemption to whichever parent decided to stay home and take care of the kids.
As others argued in the above thread, on a practical level the issue is pointless, since there is extremely little chance of the draft being reinstated in the first place. But as a matter of principle, this really irritates me* – it is so explicitly, inexplicably sexist. Again, it’s not a matter of recognizing intrinsic differences in upper body strength that would qualify men for certain combat positions more than women. There are TONS of jobs in the military that women are currently doing, and I can’t see why the female civilian population shouldn’t be eligible to be drafted for them.
*What irritates me even more is that an amazing number of otherwise liberated, equality-seeking women have demurred when this subject comes up, but maybe that’s better saved for the Pit.
Equal rights demand equal responsibilities. I think drafting people would be a huge mistake, but I think drafting men (only) would be an even worse one.
So, I’m against the draft, but I registered anyways. I know, not the same as having to, but still. If you don’t think it’s fair to be left out, you don’t HAVE to be left out. You know there’s a spot on the form you fill out that lets you indicate your sex? And I have my card, around here…somewheres… with my very feminine legal first name on it.
Women should have to register, and the military can find a use for each individual (or not) according to their ablities, rejecting the ones deemed useless and of course those who have special exemptions (single parents, etc.). Women not suited for combat would almost certainly not be made to charge into enemy foxholes with an M-16. Unless we are somehow willing to admit that women’s lives are more valuable than men’s and must be spared, I can’t find any real defense for only drafting men.
Society will probably not allow it any time soon, since despite the equal rights/responsibilities idea, the majority probably still find the idea of drafting women to be repugnant.
(note I’m against the draft in most cases, but I’d rather have a more equal draft than the one we have now)
The thinking in some circles at least is that women do their dangerous duty for their country by being the ones that get pregnant, which is nothing to sneeze at. I think that no one should be drafted, but if we are going to have a draft, it should be for everyone. I believe women can be drafted now, if they are in certain professions the military needs, like doctors.
The army still has not figured out how to deal with women and is not serious about dealing with issues inherent in having women in a combat theatre. Mind you they have women in a combat theatre now, they just don’t deal very well with it. Two of the things they need to do is to figure out how to better let a woman pee while driving a jeep non-stop and to take sexual harrassment and more importantly sexual assault seriously.
I think this is the crux of the matter, and those in charge of instituting the current system were probably thinking in terms of total war in the “we’re going to firebomb the hell out of ever military and economic target” sense. If we consolidate women as well as men on a large scale at military posts for the conduct of such a confrontation, then women as well as men will die on that scale. And looking at it from a purely Darwinian sense, 1 woman + 1,000 men over nine months will only yield 1 child, whereas 1 man + 1,000 women over nine months will yield… well, an awful lot more children, I would imagine. When it comes to birthing the next generation to replace the poor schmucks that are going to get whacked in the current war, men are just more expendable.
But I suspect (and sincerely hope) conflicts of that nature are an anachronism, and we’ll only have to worry about small wars from here on out, in which case the above argument is a non-issue.
In the Netherlands, the military draft was abolished in the 1980’s. Before that, almost all 18-year old boys had to come up for physical and mental examination. The ones found fit had to serve about a year in military training. Some liked it and learned some useful skills. Most men thought of it as a year wasted in mindless boredom, a year lost to their resumé.
Personally, I 've known guys who were eighteen in the 1980’s and objected to military service. Some became conscious objectors and had to do a year of community service. Some refused that too, on principal grounds, and had to serve time in prison ! (Although in practice, prisontime rarely happened)
Nowadays, since the abolition of the draft, the Dutch army has been severely downsized. It now consists exclusively of professionals.
So I don’t know if our Dutch draft is comparable to American Draft.
Anyway, when I was in highschool in the Netherlands and the draft still hung over the heads of my male classmates, they used to complain about the inequality. Women didn’t have to come up for draft; guys did. Not fair!
The traditional answer from my feminist French teacher. Mrs. van de Berg, was “Girls have draft too. They give up not one, but several years out of their most valuable career years. They do that to perform a valuable social service, that may cost them their lives. It’s called motherhood.”
Eh, I really shouldn’t, but the argument above is one I can’t help stamping on in the vain hope that one day it will die out, as it really, really ought to. Aside from the misuse of the word “Darwinian”, the plain fact of the matter is that as a rule, whenever there has been a war entailing a large loss of male life, the upshot is not a vast increase in unpartnered women birthing thousands of children.
Nor is there likely to be a need to. With modern obstetrics and perinatal care, our population succeeds in replacing itself with a birthrate not much in excess of two per mother. Supposing a loss of ten percent of our breeding males - which we would regard as a phenomenal catastrophe - the required replacement rate doesn’t even go up to three. Lose nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand males of breeding age and you have much worse to worry about than whether or not you can birth a thousand babies in one year; one man can’t do all the jobs that a thousand third-trimester women are temporarily unable to do.
In any case the suggestion was not that women should take the preponderance of the casualties, and instead of looking at 1000 men, one woman, you should be looking at 500 men, 500 women. No problem; upping the average birth rate to four per mother from two is by no means unthinkable.
That women should advance the “but girls have to have babies!” argument when it gets them out of something they do not want to do, and only then, is something I’ll pass over with only a :rolleyes: .
Malacandra, I don’t understand your point. When have women used the mothering argument to get out from under the draft? The point of my French teacher (and she made that point in response to the male cries of “no fair!”) was that careerwise and casualwise, birthing and soldiering are comparable.
Both cost time; both can pose a physical hazard.
My understanding, which may not be accurate or up to date, is that military service is in fact obligatory for both boys and girls in Israel.
However, if they want points for treating men and women equally in the military, they had better stick to the sound bite version. The whole story is more complicated. I was told (frighteningly close to a decade ago) that girls were required to serve for 18 months, minimum. Boys–3 years. Girls had an easier time getting out of service on the grounds of being “orthodox” or extremely religious. Women are not required to be in the reserves after finishing service, men are required(and such service by men is so important to functioning as a “normal” part of society that men who are legitimately disabled in the line of duty fight to be permitted to participate in reserve duty). Also, while women may be able to particpate in combat (I’m not well-informed on this point) women and men are often not assigned to equivalent roles in the armed forces.
Examples: Men: fighter pilots(lots of extra duty, min. of eight years service before becoming part of reserves)
Women: tour guides at Naval History Museum, radar operators, typists, even school teachers, drill instructors.
Obviously, there are plenty of details I’ve forgotten or never knew. But at core, after learning a little bit about it, I’m not convinced that Israel treats men and women any more equally when it comes to military service than many other nations do.
Exactly. Also, motherhood is not something you do instead of getting on with your life; it is part of your life - for many women, the richest, most sought after and most enjoyed part. The French teacher’s argument makes sense only if a career was the be-all and end-all of human existence (and, as Der Trihs observes, if women were being forcibly sidelined).
Incidentally, I happen to think that fatherhood is a valuable social service too.
I think they should–but they should also advance as quickly in the armed forces and be allowed all that men are while serving.
I would hate a draft, but fair is fair. I don’t understand the “but we can be mothers” bit. And? So?
I know of a few women who are mothers AND in the Army (nurse corp).
Simple answer: If all men are drafted and die in the war, we would have to use nukes to win. We need those females to be artificially insemenated to keep the US going after.
Complex answer:
Men and women are different - deal with it!
(yes I am totally serious and going on a vacation this week so won’t be replying, but feel free to respond)
You are missing the point of the pregnancy argument. If women could be drafted, especially into an unpopular war such as we are currently engaged, we would see a huge increase in the number of 18 year old pregnant women in this country. (I.e., pregnant women can’t serve in the military.)
Yes, but motherhood isn’t compulsory. If the state forced all able bodied women to register for pregnancy service and forcibly impregnated all the selectees then motherhood would be the equivalent of military service.
No, but they die anyway. In an average year in the USA, a lot more mothers die in childbirth then soldiers on the battlefield.
Every year, 3 % of live births results in the death of the mother.]([URL=http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa04/pages/ch2.htm#morbiditysdfgs) That’s 339, every year, in the USA. The odds of getting a disabling disease (diabetes, severe anemia) during your pregnancy is 10%.
Women who opt for pain medication are certain to experience severe pain, and women who don’t, for excruciating pain.
In a no-war-year, no-war-year]1995 through 1998, the numbers of total hostile death among military personal were on average less then 10 per year. Most military deaths in a year (total about 1900 a year in those years) are caused by accidents.
Only in war does the numner of military deaths exceed the number of childbirth deaths: the number of USA-military deaths in Iraq n 2004 was 2,163 and wounded 15,881. I don’t know how much of these are accidents and how many are hostile deaths, or, in your words: " someone trying to kill you" .
Sure, many women (and men) say birth is a rewarding experience. Many men say the same thing about serving your country.
Serving in the military offers the possibility of a career; aside from becoming nannys or writing a book on children (which is largely done by male psychologists) all mommie-jobs are entry-level jobs.
Caring for litttle kids is a 24-hour job for three, some say 15 years. How long is military training, draft, or service?