December 2, 2016

"We need to remove arbitrary barriers to service by women in our armed forces... There is no draft in today's military..."

"... but it is difficult to say we have true equality if we continue with a Selective Service system that only requires compulsory service from men."

Said Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The chair of the committee is John McCain, and he had no comment yesterday, as a spokesman said President Obama supports requiring women to register for the draft.

Registering for the draft is a symbolic ritual... until the draft becomes real. Is the symbolism of equality worth it? The government, if it ever reinstates the draft, can opt only to call up the males on the list. So why not go for equality in the symbolism? Perhaps the better question is: Why put young people through this symbolic ritual? Or: Why discriminate against men, subjecting only them to the ritual?

As for an actual draft, compelling men and women into service, I have never been able to picture Americans accepting forcing their daughters into combat. But if you allow women in combat and you force women into service, would we tolerate a system in which, when it comes to combat, women have a choice and men do not?

(I've thought about these questions a lot, because Rostker v. Goldberg comes up in Conlaw2. That's the 1981 case that said males-only registration doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause. And for the record: My mother was a WAC in WW2.)

86 comments:

David Begley said...

Jack Reed better get used to the fact that he is irrelevant. We don't care what he thinks. Ivanka is not registering for the draft.

Michael K said...

The entire women in combat story is about female officers wanting to have a ticket punched that says "Combat Arm" for promotion purposes. Enlisted women are not interested in combat roles with a very few exceptions.

MayBee said...

As for an actual draft, compelling men and women into service, I have never been able to picture Americans accepting forcing their daughters into combat.

Are women special or are we not?
I don't get how the loudest feminist voices could possibly argue against women being as forced into combat as men.

Sure, we've been more protective of women, but it seems the current thing is to not want that. So then it comes down to....do we love our daughters more than we love our sons? Well, I don't have daughters. I love my sons. Tell me why I should sacrifice my children more than a parent with daughters should?

Fernandinande said...

That's the 1981 case that said males-only registration doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Similar creative judgery applies to the draft's violation of the 13th amendment.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

And for the record: My mother was a WAC in WW2

Father says "Your mother's right
She's really up on things..."

Alexander said...

1. Americans will not, if put into the situation where the draft is credible, tolerate women being drafted. In fact, I would bet that in a situation where war with a meaningful power is credible, Americans by-and-large won't tolerate women volunteers to serve. I would predict a massive number of female pregnancies before deployment, and a civilian population that not only accepted this, but resisted any attempts of military law being brought against women either avoiding or resisting duty.

I would also expect to see men being publicly shamed, by men and women, if they were not on board.

That being said women should absolutely be part of the draft. One, because it might make some minds attune themselves to reality before such a war, which would be a good start.

But also, because in a total-war (the sort of war that would necessitate the draft), there is a need to mobilize in all sectors, not just the front line infantry. Why wouldn't we want a list of able-bodied women, so that we might know who is available to be conscripted to work in Military Munitions Complex, #45, South Dakota? Why wouldn't we want to know how many women who hold US Citizenship are trained (even if not practicing) doctors or nurses, or are proficient in a foreign language*? Why wouldn't we want women - like men - when they turn 18, to have an in-your-face lesson that citizenship is not just a piece of paper, but comes with obligations and responsibilities should the nation's survival require them?

* Officially, the draft is something men must sign up, one-and-done style; it does not keep tabs of useful skills, or require 'updating' one's resume. But in the age of the NSA et. al., if this information isn't on hand to relevant personnel ten minutes after a draft begins, then our government is either criminally stupid or criminally neglectful.

Roughcoat said...

Tell me why I should sacrifice my children more than a parent with daughters should?

Because your sons are men or will soon be men. And combat service is one of the things that men must on occasion do or be prepared to do. Not women -- men.

That's just the way it is.

walter said...

"Is the symbolism of equality worth it?"

When you intend to fully politicize the military, Ooh Rah!!!

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

That's just the way it is.

Roughcoat- is it the way it *still* is? Is it the way today's feminists want it?

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

I can't wait for the Trump press conference on his views concerning the Selective Service and a draft:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/deferments-helped-trump-dodge-vietnam

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-linger-about-trumps-draft-deferments-during-vietnam-war/2015/07/21/257677bc-2fdd-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html?utm_term=.5843ec1b625a


MayBee said...

FTR, I think the draft is unAmerican and a form of slavery

mockturtle said...

'Equal' does not mean 'same'. Could we just put mindless ideologies aside for a moment and look at the logic? Blurring the distinctions between the genders---and even blurring gender, itself--is a fool's mission. Let's nip this in the bud now, while a strong spasm of rationality has seized the nation.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Is the symbolism of equality worth it?

NOW you ask?!?

traditionalguy said...

God made them male and female. Now we want to do it our way.

Anglelyne said...

mockturtle: Equal' does not mean 'same'. Could we just put mindless ideologies aside for a moment and look at the logic? Blurring the distinctions between the genders---and even blurring gender, itself--is a fool's mission. Let's nip this in the bud, NOW, while a strong spams of rationality has seized the nation.

OK, I'm all for a clean-up, but I'm afraid we're past "bud" and well into the full-blown, if not rotting, stinking over-ripe end-stage of mindless ideology.

(Great typo, though. Strong spams of rationality in every inbox couldn't hurt.)

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm convinced Democrats bring this up solely as a trap for Republicans, as no matter which way Republicans go, a War on Women meme can be used against them.

AllenS said...

No. Women should not be required to register for the draft.

AllenS, draftee

Hagar said...

"Combat service" is marching in the rain, cleaning latrines, digging foxholes, and sitting on each other's toes to keep them from freezing on cold nights.

Rumpletweezer said...

There's no clearer way to show that the country thinks that it owns each and every one of us. I say bullshit to the whole thing.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

MayBee said...

Tell me why I should sacrifice my children more than a parent with daughters should?

You should not sacrifice your children more than a parent with daughters should.

However, society should sacrifice your children more willingly than it should sacrifice daughters. Because reproduction.

mockturtle said...

Sorry, Anglelyne. I corrected my typo but your response will maintain it in perpetuity. ;-D

MayBee said...

Because reproduction.

Then have a draft for pregnancy.

You don't want to fight? Fine. You have to sign up for the Pregnancy Corps. What's the argument against that?

Rick said...

The government, if it ever reinstates the draft, can opt only to call up the males on the list. So why not go for equality in the symbolism?

The government would not do this, women should certainly register and be drafted if necessary. The question is whether they should be eligible for an involuntary assignment to a combat MOS. But at the very least they can fill in for a man sent into combat from his stateside or support role.

Anglelyne said...

Matthew Sablan: I'm convinced Democrats bring this up solely as a trap for Republicans, as no matter which way Republicans go, a War on Women meme can be used against them.

Oh, I hope they do keep trying to spring their Wile E. Coyote traps. Please please please keep it up, Dems. The "war on women" b.s. keeps the catlady demographic screeching, but I think it will have ever diminishing returns, especially when it comes to something like the draft.

tcrosse said...

If gender is only a social construct, then (to coin a phrase) what difference does it make who is eligible to be conscripted ? The male-only Draft is the turd in the punchbowl of gender equality.


SteveR said...

My experience, having grown up just late enough to miss the draft during Vietnam, was that it was associated with some very bad things. I don't think its good to use registration issue as a political tool in even the slightest way.

Gretchen said...

The bottom line is that combat patrols are endangered when women are included. Of course outcomes don't matter to the left. woman should only be in support roles, for the safety of all troops.

Thorley Winston said...

Conscription is just another form of slavery and has no place in a free society. Congress and the President should repeal the requirement that men register for Selective Service and focus their efforts on maintaining and improving our professional and voluntary armed forces.

rhhardin said...

Sex isn't an arbitrary barrier.

campy said...

That's just the way it is.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that!

MayBee said...

Thorley- I completely agree.

damikesc said...

I can't wait for the Trump press conference on his views concerning the Selective Service and a draft.

Clinton survived it. I doubt Trump will do any worse.

You don't want to fight? Fine. You have to sign up for the Pregnancy Corps. What's the argument against that?

Sadly, I cannot actually think of one that would hold up.
Risk to mother's life? As opposed to a man being sent to war to be shot at?

The woman doesn't want to do it? I doubt any man has a deep love for marching and digging ditches in the cold rain or having to kill people or face the risk of death at all times.

Chuck said...

damikesc said...
I can't wait for the Trump press conference on his views concerning the Selective Service and a draft.

Clinton survived it. I doubt Trump will do any worse.


You got me. Well played.

That's a pretty low bar, for Presidential/military credibility. Trump could probably clear that hurdle.

Anglelyne said...

mockturtle: Sorry, Anglelyne. I corrected my typo but your response will maintain it in perpetuity. ;-D

Some typos are too inspired not to be preserved for posterity.

tcrosse said...

I'm with Thorley Winston at 10:05.

Jeff Hall said...

But if you allow women in combat and you force women into service, would we tolerate a system in which, when it comes to combat, women have a choice and men do not?


But women have fought, on and off, since the first Indian wars unofficially, and served officially since 1917. During all of the drafts since, then we have, in fact tolerated women having a choice and men facing the draft.

Unknown said...

Interesting concept: Men to the military, women to the Pregnancy corps. And what about "freedom of choice" to kill your baby?

The shrieking would be deafening, but how could abortion possibly survive except literally life of mother in danger? Burden on the woman to have a kid, which her body is designed to do? Versus what, the man literally being ordered to run into a stream of gunfire from an entrenched enemy on the beach, like the Marines do?

Suddenly this becomes very interesting. Draft women to the "Pregnancy Corp" and end abortion. And the left is the one that started this idea?

--Vance

Owen said...

In total war the existence of the State is at risk and the State will treat all people of all 57 genders as raw material to be used as it sees fit. So a full draft will occur but draftees will be sent where needed. Men are generally better at combat at least in classic ground-pounding mode. Women may be sent to aid stations, cookhouses or the breeding camps to start replacing men lost in combat.

But given our technology a total war will be over in 20 minutes, so none of this will happen like that. We are already draftees, every one of us, destined to become ash on the wind in any war serious enough to make this debate more than an academic parlor game.

Bill said...

I have never been able to picture Americans accepting forcing their daughters into combat.

I can picture Sally Kohn, Chelsea Clinton, and Melissa Harris-Perry being forced into combat. With relish.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am old enough to remember the draft, not fondly, and to have been potentially subject to it. I was lucky, missing Vietnam due to timing and a college deferment. If I were a couple years younger, I wouldn't have had such a deferment, and a couple years older, and I would have been drafted upon graduation. Nevertheless, the men of my generation faced something that the women did not, something that hung over us throughout our college years that Ann and her sisters at the time did not. And, that was the expectation of being sent to fight (and potentially die in) a stupid war half way around the word being fought stupidly (of course, by the time I was in college, Nixon was President, and the war was no longer being fought stupidly, but we didn't know that at the time).

Because of that experience, I am completely in favor of including women in the draft. If they want equal opportunities at work and in school, equal pay, etc., then they need to face equal responsibilities. Nothing else is fair. We no longer face a situation where their child bearing potential should shield themselves from danger - typical childbearing in this country is low enough that adding a kid or two per mother would not be that onerous as a country.

n.n said...

Democrats really do perceive human beings as colorful clumps of cells, and women and men as not equal and complementary, but as equivalent and interchangeable. What a weird fantasy that gives rise to a weird quasi-religion that has left a trail of organs, blood, tears, and dysfunction in its wake.

Brian said...

Meh, it's just Democrats proposing a transfer payment to their favorite constituency: bureaucrats. Instead of registering the usual 2 million 18-year-old men next year, they'd get to register that many men plus the 17 million women that are currently in the 17-24 age group. Think of the overtime! Glorious, glorious overtime.

Howard said...

Not having a draft makes having stupid wars easier and lines pockets of war profiteers who have replaced the motor pool, chow hall and other REMF's with "contractors". I say draft the girls, then we won't any more elective wars to line the pockets of Halliburton, KBR, DynCorp, General Dynamics and Blackwater/Xi/Academi and their enablers in DC.

mikee said...

Democrats want women in the military precisely to destroy the longstanding military culture, which emphasizes military effectiveness over any other aspect of the current culture. When your primary concern is the dangly or nondangly bits in the private's uniforms, military effectiveness suffers.

I read, in the Naval Research Laboratory's Library, the official report from the late 1940s about the integration of black officers into the Navy. It was a paean to maintaining military effectiveness as the primary goal, while following Truman's order to integrate the military.

If you want to give females the opportunity to serve in the military in combat, OK. If you want to change the military to accommodate females in the service, because they are females, forget it. It violates the principal mission of the military to do so.

Paul said...

I say draft the women. Yep, draft 'em.

Let there be a Iwo Jima, a Okinawa, a Chosin Reservoir, a Hürtgen Forest. A Yom Kippur War.

Let them find out what it means to lose a regiment and go on to worry about losing a division, or corps!

See Israel did use women in war as did Russia. And after horrendous casualties.. they concluded it was not worth it unless it was that or annihilation.

So think some snowflakes need to be drafted and then... die in war.

That seems the only way they will learn the military is NOT A JOBS CORPS.

Larry J said...

Michael K said...
The entire women in combat story is about female officers wanting to have a ticket punched that says "Combat Arm" for promotion purposes. Enlisted women are not interested in combat roles with a very few exceptions.


Yes, and it's the worst form of careerism in that they want what's good for themselves instead of what's best for the service.

I'm a veteran who completely opposes the draft. Despite what the supreme court ruled, it is a form of involuntary servitude. The military doesn't want the draft because of the difficulty of dealing with large numbers of people being forced to serve against their will. Also, the days of massive military forces are likely over. A modern brigade combat team (BCT) likely has more combat power than a WWII division.

I also oppose requiring young men to register for the draft. If they fail to register, they can get heavily penalized while no such requirement is put on women. In every draft in US history, there has been exemptions for people with sufficient connections to avoid service. In the Civil War, you could pay about $200 (which was a lot of money back then) to avoid being drafted. You seldom hear of the sons of politicians being drafted. Some enlisted, either out of patriotism or because they wanted viability for future political campaigns, but few were drafted against their will.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Or: Why discriminate against men, subjecting only them to the ritual?

Why not? They're men, so it's ok. Men aren't a protected class, so discrimination against men isn't wrong.

But if you allow women in combat and you force women into service, would we tolerate a system in which, when it comes to combat, women have a choice and men do not?

Would you tolerate it? Yes, of course you would. No one believes otherwise. "It's for the good of the country" so easily replaces "it's for the good of the child" there's no real question here--we know you tolerate all sorts of unfair treatment (against men) when the one appeal is made there can be no doubt you'd tolerate it when a slightly different appeal is made.

tcrosse said...

I was drafted in 1967, and enlisted in the Navy to save my sorry hide. Not only were women exempted, but so were rich guys and the well-connected, many of whom became big shots in government. Conscription is suited to wars which require a lot of low-skilled cannon-fodder and ground-pounders. What modern war and weapons systems require are well-trainded and disciplined professionals. Conscription has outlived its dubious usefulness.

Jupiter said...

Having young people for slaves is very useful, and I can understand why a red-blooded American male like Jack Reed is distressed that only the boys are subject to his sick whims. But he's a Democrat, and they have always favored slavery in any and every form. Maybe the rest of you Doomsday strategists can explain to me what conceivable future conflict would necessitate the activation of the draft, but not the use of ICBMs? Or how exactly a few million enslaved young women are going to be of military use after the ICBMs have flown? Keeping in mind that it takes years to train soldiers to use modern weapons.

The Chinese aren't registering their daughters (the few they didn't abort) for the draft. They are working on faster ICBMs. A *lot* faster.

boycat said...

If women were truly equal to men then we should have all military (all branches and units), all police and all fire personnel 100% female, just as in the past these were 100% male, to make up for past discrimination. And since everybody's equal, there will be no drop off in the quality of performance in combat situations, including close quarters and hand to hand, nor in police arrests of resisting perps, nor in rescuing incapacitated fire victims from burning buildings, etc. Right? Because women can do anything men can do.

The Drill SGT said...

What Larry J said....

However, let's be clear. Today women volunteer, They serve in "combat". They didn't, till recently "serve in ground combat arms" positions. e.g. Infantry, Armor, field Arty.

serving in combat means being a truck driver in a convoy down a road under fire from an ambush.

Serving in the Infantry is a whole different world...

oh, and they can still play the "pregnant card" to get out of whatever.

Jupiter said...

The Democrats are fond of pretending to believe that the Draft prevents casual war-mongering, although they know perfectly well it didn't stop Roosevelt or Johnson. The real reason Democrats want women to register for the draft is precisely in order to deny that women are different *in any way* from men. They are totalitarians, and all totalitarians hate biology. They want you to feel the same way about a tattooed teen-aged Honduran gangster as you feel about your daughter - ready to sacrifice everything including life itself for either one of them, and ready to sacrifice both of them at the whim of the State. They are enemies of the family because they are competitors of the family, and they are selling a very inferior product.

Sal said...

We need to remove arbitrary barriers...

But the barriers aren't arbitrary.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I am not, FTR, in favor of women in combat positions, but so long as they have it, then absolutely they should register for the draft. It's obvious. If you insist on literal equality, then you get it -- all of it, not just the yummy bits. If you don't -- if you beg off stuff like being potentially drafted into the infantry -- then maybe you don't get to apply for any combat positions that appeal, either.

Like I said, I'd much rather shelve the whole issue. But if women are actually in favor of serving in combat roles, they need to serve up the whole enchilada.

(I am female myself, obviously, but way past combat age; hence "they" and not "we" above.)

Jupiter said...

A draft is simply a tax, one levied on young people. The same result could be obtained by raising military pay, but that would require a tax that fell upon older people. Indeed, it seems likely that the 26th Amendment has already rendered the draft a dead letter, as its prospective victims are now voters. The registration, on the other hand, may yet prove useful to the Statists. Recall the iron law, that any power granted to the State, for whatever purpose, is sooner or later employed in the service of other purposes entirely.

Big Mike said...

As a Vietnam-era draftee I have mixed feelings about the draft. On the one hand, I think most of today's university students have no grasp of what people are like outside of their bubble and there's nothing like having a person from the rural south using the bunk on one side of you and a kid from the inner city on the other to give one a fresh and honest perspective. OTOH, not everybody serves and the people who don't have two-year head start on their careers. GI Bill benefits close the gap a little, but not as much as might be imagined.

As to women, Hell yes draft them! There are an awful lot of MOS numbers that don't face combat. And every woman who knows how to use a gun is one fewer potential rape victim.

Jupiter said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
"I am not, FTR, in favor of women in combat positions, but so long as they have it, then absolutely they should register for the draft."

I will point out that the same questionable goal, of equality between the sexes, can be served equally well by ending the registration for the draft altogether.

MayBee said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...


12/2/16, 11:21 AM

I agree, completely.

And yes, Jupiter, that would be the better option.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

boycat, that's a mite troppo. Everyone (and I mean that literally) knows that only extremely exceptional women could possibly serve in the infantry; that firefighting standards have been drastically lowered to allow women to serve; that female police officers are frequently in exceptionally nasty situations; usw. Women can't do anything men can do, not when it comes to stuff like upper-body strength. Mentally, sure. But about the only physical abilities in which women excel over men are extreme distance running and things like gymnastics. (The gendered aspects of the last concern me. Why do women's and men's tasks differ so greatly? When's the first Title IX challenge? What happens when there's a trans gymnast, and does it matter whether FTM or MTF, and pre- or post-op? .)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Jupiter,

I see your point, but wonder if it's wise. We don't know whether (or when) we will need conscription again, but we might. If we do, it's as well to know who the draftees are. And they ought to be women as well as men, so long as women now in the military insist on access to whatever combat positions they like.

Tank said...

We men have been answering the draft call long enough. Women are our equals. It's their turn. They should be drafted and fight for the next 250 years. Let's send 50,000 female troops to every hell hole on earth. Leave em there. Don't let em shoot until the other guys shoot first.

It's time to put women first.

Tank said...

Tank (note name "Tank") says, "Any woman who can do one pushup and half a pull up is fit to fight. Draft em from the schools, draft em from the kitchens, draft em from the boardrooms, draft em from the bedrooms. Draft em and draft em again.

Original Mike said...

"The government, if it ever reinstates the draft, can opt only to call up the males on the list. So why not go for equality in the symbolism?"

Honesty?

mockturtle said...

The military should become such an attractive option--especially if combat is limited to real, declared war--that the draft should never be necessary.

MaxedOutMama said...

I think an actual draft for a prolonged and unpopular war would not work today if registration is limited to men, because we have removed any legal barriers in many states to recognition of men as women. It is that simple.

Young men would (and their parents would support them) simply change their legal IDS to female. To do so there is no legal barrier left. It does not require anything except the person stating that he feels like a woman. He may do so with a full beard dressed in a very male fashion, and there is nothing that can stop "him" from becoming "her" by the law.

And that is the reason that women should register for the draft.

I doubt a male-only draft is possible nowadays. Legally. This is what all the tolerance has brought us - distinctions that are necessary and valid in the real world have been obliterated in the law, so the law will sometimes mandate things that are insane in the real world.

Gahrie said...

Because your sons are men or will soon be men. And combat service is one of the things that men must on occasion do or be prepared to do. Not women -- men.

That's just the way it is.


I actually agree with you. But why does this dictum only apply when it benefits women and disadvantages men?

Heatshield said...

My father-in-law landed in the first wave on D-Day. We took him to see the Hacksaw Ridge WWII movie last week. The combat scenes are overwhelming. I asked him later if the violence depicted was realistic. He said yes and then immediately added: "Why would you want women in that kind of shit? It's horrible. Any way you can get out of that, you should take it!".

Hagar said...

And you get screamed at and hollered at a lot, and you get to meet lots of people you had no idea anybody like them existed.

holdfast said...

First "combat" is a stupid basis for limiting women's roles in the military.

Women as chopper pilots? Fine.

Women in the Infantry, Armor, Arty, Combat Engineers and SF? Stupid.

If we desperately needed surgeons, computer programmers, Arabic speakers or code-crackers, no reason not to draft women into these REMF jobs.

Realistically, even if all roles are open to women on paper, you could use a physical fitness exam focused on upper body strength to exclude them from the main combat arms. OK, the occasional female Olympian might slip through, but in practice it would be effective.

The Drill SGT said...

Realistically, even if all roles are open to women on paper, you could use a physical fitness exam focused on upper body strength to exclude them from the main combat arms. OK, the occasional female Olympian might slip through, but in practice it would be effective.

We have a defacto standard. Max the Men's PT Test.

Of course today, a Man Fails the PT Test with about the same score a a Max Female Test :)

Static Ping said...

At this point, the military does not want a draft so this is really a silly issue. The modern army takes years to train soldiers, sailors, etc. and two-year draftees are of minimal usefulness. If we ever need a draft again, it is either going to be a long war or a desperate one.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

For all who imply that women would not, or could not, fight, I refer you to Kipling's poem, The Female of the Species and perhaps to the Bible, Judges 4:21, where Jael drives a tent peg through the enemy Sisera's head with a hammer, pinning it to the ground, while he slept. Women are very capable of killing. The difference, as I see it, is that women are less hierarchically inclined than men. There is less of the combat esprit de corps, thus cohesiveness is compromised. That, and the fact that women alongside men in combat situations is a distraction to both.


Clyde said...

I'm a veteran and I served two enlistments. I volunteered back in 1981 at a point in time where conscription had been eliminated and we were an all-volunteer force. My own personal opinion is that conscription is a bad idea in a free society. I don't think that anyone should be drafted, male or female; however, I would say that should it come to that, then those who are not fit for military service, whether male or female, should be utilized in some other form of national service. As for combat arms units, I think that the standards should not be relaxed in order for women to meet them. If they don't have the size and strength, not to mention the motivation, to serve in combat, then they should be diverted to support units where their talents can be better utilized. And that would probably apply to most women who aren't at the extreme right end of the bell curve. The enemy won't "play fair" and throw female units at our female soldiers.

n.n said...

mockturtle:

Women can and do fight. They are not only capable of killing, but they kill larger numbers and for trivial causes. Some women, anyway. It's a Choice.

That said, whether it is for an existential crisis, or for domestic crimes, or for recreation, both boys and girls should be trained to handle arms and in defensive arts.

n.n said...

The natural imperative dictates that we limit placement of women in harm's way, and certainly its normalization. The moral imperative that recognizes individual dignity, implies that we should consider first come, first serve, and on merit. This precludes [class] diversity schemes, affirmative actions, and other forms of prejudice.

Yancey Ward said...

The right decision is to eliminate the registration altogether, for both genders. It is an anachronism that should have been eliminated when the draft was axed.

In any case, women in combat are a danger to the units involved in fighting- you simply can't ignore the physical and emotional differences between the sexes because they are magnified in life and death situations.

mockturtle said...

Clyde, I do agree with you that all can serve in some capacity. Even as a 'senior citizen', I believe I could serve in several capacities and would be willing to do so. What Trump brings to the table is the idea that we can do things differently. We are not stuck in bureaucratic protocol unless we choose to perpetuate it.

SukieTawdry said...

I really don't think we need women in combat, but if we must have them then they must be subject the the same rules as men and that includes registering for the draft. And don't forget, a woman who doesn't want to answer the call has an option her male counterparts don't: she can get pregnant.

Douglas said...

Women shouldn't serve in infantry or artillery or tank combat units or on naval combat ships. I expect that reversing the Obama policy on this will be the first thing that Mattis does once he takes office as Secretary of Defense.

LisaS said...

I have two seventeen year olds. One son, one daughter. My son has to register or he is ineligible for financial aid for college. My daughter...no such requirement. Neither should be required to register. But if one does, the other should too.

Freeman Hunt said...

There shouldn't be any draft. Ever.

Matthew Blaine said...

Any woman who gets an abortion, or buys birth control, or wants a driver's license, or files a no-fault divorce, should be automatically conscripted into military service.

Matthew Blaine said...

A woman registering to vote should also be automatically conscripted.