"This case balances on the tension between the constitutionally enshrined power of Congress to raise armies and the constitutional mandate that no person be denied the equal protection of the law," wrote U.S. District Judge Gray Miller of the Southern District of Texas.This goes against the Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg, which I taught many times in Conlaw class. I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women — that only women can bear children. In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population. Quite aside from that, I think it would be hard to institute a draft if it meant forcing women into military service. But it would be hard to institute a draft and to give all women and no men the right to say yes or no about what happens to their bodies.
The lawsuit was filed in 2013 against the Selective Service System by Texas resident James Lesmeister, who later added San Diego resident Anthony Davis and the San Diego-based National Coalition for Men as additional plaintiffs....
"Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas" such as divorce, child custody and domestic violence services, [Coalition attorney Marc] Angelucci said. "Women are now allowed in combat, so this decision is long overdue," he added. "After decades of sex discrimination against men in the Selective Service, the courts have finally found it unconstitutional to force only men to register."...
The judge... disagreed with the government's position that drafting women would be an administrative burden and that far more women than men will be found physically unfit for service after being drafted. Congress has expressed few concerns about female physical ability, but did focus more on societal consequences of drafting young mothers to go off to war, Miller said.
But the fact is we don't have the draft. We just have this registration for the draft — the theater of the potential draft. And what's showing in the government's theater matters not because of the reality of military service but because of the message. That's why the lawyer spoke in terms of reinforcing stereotypes.
Full disclosure: My mother was one of the first WACs, and my parents met in the Army, and I know for a fact that I only exist because of women in the military.
Posts
175 comments:
If women get to vote, surely they should get to be drafted. Next up - equal justice for men in family court.
Some reproductive rights for men are in order, as well. No man should be forced to pay for the cost of raising a post-fetus that he would have chosen to abort. You breed 'em, you feed 'em.
I think this decision was inevitable. When the argument is equal outcomes, then outcomes must be equal.
Equal justice equals equal output. THIS is what they have been fighting for.
I like how the judge refused to follow binding Supreme Court precedent.
A big fuck you to John Roberts who still seems to think The Court should be held in high esteem.
If a women finds her tour of duty dangerous or miserable, she can figure out some way to become pregnant and be excused. So no problem.
It is unlikely that there will be a draft again, except in a situation where there is an existential military threat to the nation. Should that be the case, such niceties will be inconsequential.
It seems only fair that women should register for the draft as well as men. After all, the feminists insist on equality: that women are the equal of men.
The issue of women being separated from their children by being drafted can be solved by drafting the women into support occupations. Women are encouraged to think that they must be working and are thus torn from their children in private life by their own volition. No one seems to be so concerned about the fathers who are drafted into the military and LITERALLY torn from their children and also in great danger of never ever being able to rejoin their families....aka DEAD.
In a national emergency where women are drafted into service, provisions can be made for child care.
Y'all want to be EQUAL? You take the good with the bad. Put on your big girl panties and stop whining.
I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women
Wait..what? men and women are different? That's not what I've been told!
— that only women can bear children.
Well they've mostly stopped doing so.
In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.
We should care about it now...our civilization is in a dire demographic predicament, and we should care very much about maintaining the population. But no such emergency could ever justify forcing women to become pregnant and bear children...right?
Quite aside from that, I think it would be hard to institute a draft if it meant forcing women into military service.
Well. yeah...you're a woman. The government has been doing it to men pretty effectively for centuries.
But it would be hard to institute a draft and to give all women and no men the right to say yes or no about what happens to their bodies.
Why? You find it pretty easy to give all women and no men the right to say yes or no about what happens to their unborn children's bodies.
Women have rights and no responsibilities, men have responsibilities and no rights.
Plenty of non-frontline military needs if that's what it comes down to.
Ann Althouse: progeny of patriotism.
horrifying thought
Ann is a progressive liberal and feminist
Ann is clever at promoting a leftist narrative as demonstrated at this website
Ann was a law professor for over 25 years
There were and still are countless left leaning law professors like ann in academia.
Surprised at the ruling?
It seems only fair that women should register for the draft as well as men.
The military draft is a form of slavery; it might be more fair to make slaves out of as many people as possible, or to at least force more people sign up for possible slave duty under penalty of law, but it's not better.
It's a bit like making everyone poor to decrease differences in income.
“The issue of women being separated from their children by being drafted can be solved by drafting the women into support occupations. ”
Sandwiching-making duty again, Sargeant!
I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women.
Good, good. That's a fine first step. Now are there (could there possible be) mental or emotional differences.
In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.
So, you're a Hand Maidens Tale fan? Or, since you seem to say send the men, are we in favor of polygamy?
If I remember corrctly, if you don’t register for the draft, you cannot get federal financial aid for college. That in itself makes it an equal protection issue.
Quite aside from that, I think it would be hard to institute a draft if it meant forcing women into military service.
I don't see why this should be an issue, other than women will balk at actually having to do what we demand of men. Serve their country. It is hypocritical for women to demand equality, except when it is inconvenient to women.
Being drafted doesn't necessarily mean going into combat. Some qualified women will/might end up in combat situations, however there are many important and needed occupations that women can fill.
Mechanics. Cooks. Computer technician. Drone pilots. Supply clerks. Truck drivers [Queen Elizabeth was one in WWII]. Cargo plane pilots. Accounting processes. Welding. Paperwork Galore!!! on and on. Lots of things that don't require combat or even physical strength.
Examples: During WII one of my co worker's Mother was a welder at the shipyards in Oakland. Many women did this job in WWII. Another good friend was a supply line supervisor, clerk and organizer stationed in and are to the north of San Francisco. Her jobs were to make sure that the supplies that were needed in the various areas of combat were being sent and received. Her husband was in the navy. Submarines and was at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack.
Cowboy up ladies!
Women can take a bullet, have their arms blown off and all the subsidiary horrors of war as well as any man. Draft em' Dano.
Ferd said:The military draft is a form of slavery; it might be more fair to make slaves out of as many people as possible, or to at least force more people sign up for possible slave duty under penalty of law, but it's not better.
Fine. Then don't have a draft at all.
An all volunteer or paid mercenary army is what you want then. Right?
There is a growing subpopulation of men and women who are not even residents but who will gladly take up the jobs left behind as citizens fight for their rights.
If you want to see some badass beauties, look up Women of the IDF on Pinterest. They also have a fb page.
Ann: I'm glad your parents met.
"only women can bear children"
My, what a retro-20th century opinion. Methinks zhe needs some re-education.
Just finished watching season 1 of “Jack Ryan” on Amazon Prime. this post reminded me of episode 4 and French Intelligience officer Sandrine Artaud. Tough, fearless. Now there’s the woman you want in the draft.
The irony is what she says to Jack Ryan. Driving together in the car she catches wind of Ryan’s desire to connect with Dr. Mueller back in the States. Sandrine criticizes his timidity. She pushes him to be a “wolf” (title of the episode). Sure enough his later masculine approach to the good doctor winds up in bed.
(That episode paints the French as racists AND as tough realists.)
How about this...we pass an amendment that says you don't have the right to vote unless you register for the draft?
"All they had to do was not to act crazy and they could not even do that!"
At a time democrats are demanding universal child care beginning shortly after birth, concern over "tearing mothers away from their children" seems quaint.
Truck drivers [Queen Elizabeth was one in WWII]
She was trained to be a truck mechanic.
One of Mom's older cousins went in the Army in the 50's and came back with a new surname and a daughter but no husband in sight. The name was "Lamb," something no one ever associated with that strange butch woman (it occurred to me now that she was on the Spectrum). The daughter made a career of helping unwed mothers.
At a time democrats are demanding universal child care beginning shortly after birth, concern over "tearing mothers away from their children" seems quaint.
Well after she decides whether or not the baby gets to continue to live of course. She may just decide to let it die.
We watched LEVEL on Acorn this week. Several times the waif of a police detective froze or burst into tears at key moments of danger. Despite how PC the rest of the show was, the producers and writers should all be black-listed.
"I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women — that only women can bear children."
As a part of a qualifying course in the Army my son did a brisk, timed 25 mile hike carrying a 60 pound pack. Might there be other physical differences other than child bearing that matter?
Go to the local Walmart and tell all the young ladies you see that they should not get married and have babies until they have served a stint in the military.
Truck drivers [Queen Elizabeth was one in WWII]
Ralph L said: She was trained to be a truck mechanic.
Cool. Better yet! Thanks for the correction.
and I know for a fact that I only exist because of women in the military.
and mom did not abort Baby A
Only women can bear children?
Obviously, there are plenty of ways women can contribute to a strong military - i.e., the WACs of WW II or whatever females are doing currently in the Isrseli Defense Forces.
The stupidity factor comes when some liberal or leftist starts blathering about "equality" and pretending there are no differences between men and women, and starts weakening standards to accomodate this falsehood.
I'll believe leftists actually care about this nonsense when the abolish the women's PGA and simply let the women compete equally on the Men's Tour.
Hypothetical:
This decision stands. Women have to submit to the draft. A draft is held. A woman decides to get pregnant to avoid the draft. One week after her draft board issues its exemption, she has an abortion. What should happen to the woman?
I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women — that only women can bear children.
That is a rather blatant transphobic assertion.
In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.
So, you're a Hand Maidens Tale fan? Or, since you seem to say send the men, are we in favor of polygamy?
Can they be drafted to fuck? To breed? With partners not if their choice perhaps but the Army's choice?
No hun, we're not selecting for fast twitch but dexterity in the next assault wave, so you can't get screwed by a black man, we've got a couple of Chinese lined up for you to sire EOD Tech's.
No babe, you're too stupid/mental to breed, but you are pretty and you score high on slutptitude, so we're going to snip you then put you in the USO and you can entertain GIs between dances.
Notice this is not the Constitution "evolving" but the judge citing facts about military service changing over time.
Notorious RBG had a role in the adoption of the standard of review that applies.
Two years later, in Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), Professor Ginsburg's argument that strict scrutiny should apply to gender cases persuaded four but not the necessary five justices. Pragmatist that Ginsburg was, she thereafter focused on coaxing the Court to adopt a mid-level "heightened" review for sex discrimination cases. That mission was accomplished in 1976, when Justice Brennan formulated an intermediate standard for gender cases in Craig v. Boren. Ruth Ginsburg had advised the plaintiffs' lawyer in that case, submitted an amicus brief for the ACLU, and sat at counsel table for his oral argument to the Supreme Court.
In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population. Quite aside from that, I think it would be hard to institute a draft if it meant forcing women into military service. But it would be hard to institute a draft and to give all women and no men the right to say yes or no about what happens to their bodies.
In such an existential environment, where men aren’t given a choice about their bodies due to the draft, it’s conceivable (pun intended) that women would also not be given a choice about contraception (use or non use) or the right to choose.
To Althouse's main point I once saw a good definition of patriotism (maybe from Scott Adams): women and children first. Patriotism is about placing a value on the group and its survival. To preserve the group, the tribe, the wombs and the children must be saved. Sperm donors can double up later.
I found that a very interesting observation. Made me consider my own impulses. What rule do I think is right for lifeboats? Women and children first.
And Chuck last.
I say fine. Make everyone 18 eligible for the draft, without exception. Institute 3 year mandatory service for all draftees. No deferments or exemptions.
tell all the young ladies you see that they should not get married and have babies until they have served a stint in the military
The problem, of course, is that since more women have joined, a fair number of them have had babies while still serving in the military. Many of them aboard ships while away for months on sea duty.
I'll believe leftists actually care about this nonsense when the abolish the women's PGA and simply let the women compete equally on the Men's Tour.
To my knowledge, there is no sex rule for the PGA. So long as they otherwise qualify for a PGA card, women can play on it if they want. The problem is that most who have tried haven't been able to qualify. And when they have qualified or gotten an exemption, they have not fared very well.
Althouse wouldn’t exist if Hitler hadn’t the invaded half of Europe.
What rule do I think is right for lifeboats? Women and children first.
I believe this too. Women and children are different than men, and should be treated differently. The problem is, feminism only believes this when it benefits women and rejects it when it benefits men.
What about Facebook's other 55 genders?
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. It's only sad because many women are not on board with the feminist agenda.
Israeli women are drafted. Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) served as a heavy machine gun instructor during her tour.
Fernandistein said...
"The military draft is a form of slavery..."
That's the issue in a nutshell. The draft has been illegal since the passage of the 13th Amendment. It has become unnecessary as well, and indeed impracticable. And the idea that the US could face an "existential military predicament"that could be averted by increassing the number of soldiers is laughable. The draft is history, and registration should be as well.
Babe Didrikson was the first woman ever to enter a PGA Tour event when she entered the 1938 Los Angeles Open. Five others have played since then, including Michelle Wie, who has played in eight PGA tournaments -- the first when she was 14 years old.
"'In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.' So, you're a Hand Maidens Tale fan? Or, since you seem to say send the men, are we in favor of polygamy?"
The Handmaid's Tale is a very silly attempt to picture how women would be mobilized if necessary to maintain the population.
What I picture is:
1. Propaganda about how wonderful motherhood is.
2. Economic support for women who devote themselves to bearing children. Excellent housing, free food and clothing, excellent schools for the children.
3. Free health care for mothers and children, including artificial insemination with the woman's choice of the very best sperm.
4. Cultural praise for mothers — movies, songs, celebrations — and frowning on any sort of critique that encourages women to devote their life's energies elsewhere.
5. Absolutely no bullies at all. None of those scary bad guys in "Handmaid's Tale." They'll be sent off to war or useless. There will be nothing about needing to have sex with a man you don't want.
A viable military needs more than soldiers. Drivers, computer specialists, medics and nurses are all important in today's service. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect women to serve. All women, college students not excepted. They would be more useful to society than someone taking 'Women's Studies' or other such tripe. College can [and should] wait, for both men and women. Eighteen-year-olds are not usually prepared to pursue higher education.
Economic support for women who devote themselves to bearing children. Excellent housing, free food and clothing,
We used to have a system for doing this. Feminists and the Left have spent the last sixty years destroying it.
What I picture is:
A system in which women will continue to have choice, rights without responsibilities and free stuff. How long until the first angry lesbian files a lawsuit complaining that she's not getting any of the free stuff?
1. Propaganda about how wonderful motherhood is.
For most of us, motherhood is wonderful. For those exceptions there will always be alternatives.
1. Propaganda about how wonderful motherhood is.
For most of us, motherhood is wonderful.
Well, if some of us would not be here but for women in the military, NONE of us would be here without motherhood.
So, yes, it is wonderful. It is how we all exist. And continue existing.
That only women can bear children? Like in a war we’ll run out of women? Haha. First, they need man to do have children. Balance out the genders in the services and you’re less likely to run out of either. Unless women can’t shoot straight.
Norway has a draft for decades. they started drafting women a couple of years a ago without any problems. The teenage boys and girls even share the same barracks, which maybe makes compulsory military service more fun. All have the option of doing civil service if they object being in the military.
In Rostker, it was important to the reasoning that women were excluded from combat. So there is a new question now that women are not excluded. It will be interesting if that goes to the Supreme Court.
"How long until the first angry lesbian files a lawsuit complaining that she's not getting any of the free stuff?"
I didn't exclude lesbians.
1. Propaganda about how wonderful motherhood is.
2. Economic support for women who devote themselves to bearing children. Excellent housing, free food and clothing, excellent schools for the children.
3. Free health care for mothers and children, including artificial insemination with the woman's choice of the very best sperm.
4. Cultural praise for mothers — movies, songs, celebrations — and frowning on any sort of critique that encourages women to devote their life's energies elsewhere.
So. Women can show their patriotic support.... Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Bear the Aryan children for the Father land and keep the race strong. Have many babies for Mother Russia.
The USGA has always allowed women to qualify for the US Open. The PGA makes its own rules for tour events and Wir and Annika were provided special exemptions on occasion, like sponsor exemptions. I beleive Suzy Whaley played in a qualifier to earn a spot in a tour event in Hartford .
I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women — that only women can bear children. In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.
Societies facing existential military predicaments requiring attention to "maintaining the population" would by necessity have to outlaw or severely restrict "choice". You good with that?
But that's really neither here nor there, because the U.S., according to all right-thinking contemporary ideologies (left and right) cannot, by definition, have any kind of "existential" predicaments. Since we're entirely a "proposition nation" (as are all Western nations), it doesn't matter if we memory-hole our entire history with the exception of some copies of Our Constitution, and every living American dies. As long as there are other humans to move in, glance over a copy of Our Constitution, and and take up being Americans.
They can then immediately recommence the haruspicatin' of the penumbras and emanations to adapt Our (Now Their) Constitution to Who They Are, assuring the continued existence of America. (This all follows logically from What We Really Are (or Are Supposed to Be, Anyway)).
Furthermore, the very idea of defending the interests of existing American citizens against anyone, in any way, is racist, "nationalist", isolationist, xenophobic, downright nazi. So what's the point of wanking around with these either impossible or grossly immoral hypotheticals?
Mockturtle A viable military needs more than soldiers. Drivers, computer specialists, medics and nurses are all important in today's service. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect women to serve.
Exactly.
In addition the life experience of being in the military might do some of these rootless, under-educated, skill-less young people good. Be able to learn something. Get a real skill. Get out of their bubbles, meet people from all walks of life...... and grow the eff up.
"How long until the first angry lesbian files a lawsuit complaining that she's not getting any of the free stuff?"
I didn't exclude lesbians.
OK..how long until the first angry lesbian files a lawsuit saying she shouldn't be forced to get pregnant to get the free stuff? Or the first transgender woman who can't get pregnant files a discrimination lawsuit?
Angle-Dyne observes: Furthermore, the very idea of defending the interests of existing American citizens against anyone, in any way, is racist, "nationalist", isolationist, xenophobic, downright nazi. So what's the point of wanking around with these either impossible or grossly immoral hypotheticals?
True, but let's say they're not given a choice? Are men given a choice? Will these snowflakes all run to Canada? IMO, if they do, they shouldn't be allowed back. And good riddance.
“1. Propaganda about how wonderful motherhood is.
2. Economic support for women who devote themselves to bearing children. Excellent housing, free food and clothing, excellent schools for the children.
3. Free health care for mothers and children, including artificial insemination with the woman's choice of the very best sperm.
4. Cultural praise for mothers — movies, songs, celebrations — and frowning on any sort of critique that encourages women to devote their life's energies elsewhere.
5. Absolutely no bullies at all. None of those scary bad guys in "Handmaid's Tale." They'll be sent off to war or useless. There will be nothing about needing to have sex with a man you don't want.”
The French have been trying many of these things for decades with only marginal success.
I've often thought about the specific, important physical difference between men and women — that only women can bear children. In an existential military predicament, we might care very much about maintaining the population.
If you think it's OK for the state to conscript men and force them to do things like charge machine gun nests, would you be OK with the state conscripting women to bear children? After all, which sounds like the tougher duty -- 9 months of infantry combat or 9 months of pregnancy? Fair is fair, right? If you recoil from the idea of the government drafting and impregnating women for the good of the state, why don't you recoil at the idea of forcing men into the meat grinder of combat, where they may see their friends' limbs blown off (or their own)? How many women end up with PTSD due to pregnancy?
Be able to learn something. Get a real skill. Get out of their bubbles, meet people from all walks of life...... and grow the eff up.
Agree 100%. The real question might be, 'do we have enough grownups to instruct and lead them?'
Norway has had mandatory military service, or at east training, for (mostly) young men for centuries. It was necessary to maintain an army to protect against invasions by the damned Swedes.
When I grew up, it was no longer the Swedes, but in case the Cold War should turn hot.
The term for universal (but only for men) military training was 18 months. No questions asked of conscientious objectors, but their term of the optional civil service (CCC - draining bogs, etc.) was 24 months.
... least ...
Read the report on how the uss fitzgerald got t-boned by a freighter 2 years ago.
Lots of problems with the ship but one of the biggest was general lack of discipline and professionalism.
At the time of the collision the officer on deck and the officer in combat central were both women. And, because they didn't trust each the bridge and cic did not communicate with each other.
Not saying the collision could have been avoided with more professionalism. Not saying male sailors would necessarily have been more professional. Not even blaming lax discipline on the need to avoid hurting female feelings.
But I sure wish the navy would look into it.
No sailor will say so publicly but many will say privately that women do not belong on naval ships for about 100 reasons.
Read both the pro publica and Military Times investigations into the Fitzgerald report.
Also look into the murder of karen hultgren. Putting her in an f14 and letting her do carrier landings was murder pure and simple. Just to do a social experiment.
John Henry
This is a pretty silly fantasy, that we will "maintain the population" after heavy male combat deaths, apparently via some Strangelovian scenario whereby we protect one male for every ten females--the optimal breeding ratio, as the doctor notes--and tell them to go at it. I volunteer to be one of the males.
In real life, the effect of depleting the male population would be what they were in post World War I France: large numbers of childless old maids.
“Blogger Mr. D said...
If I remember corrctly, if you don’t register for the draft, you cannot get federal financial aid for college. That in itself makes it an equal protection issue.”
This is a true case of sex based discrimination. Only men have been required to register for the draft. If they fail to do so, they suffer economic consequences that only apply to men.
I served in the military for 13 years, including 2 in the infantry. In other roles, I served along side women who did a good job. Only a small percentage of mikitary jobs are in combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineering) that require substancial physical strength. Women can and do fill most military jobs and most do quite well.
As for the draft, it’s involuntary servitude pure and simple. That, and the fact that every draft in US history has allowed exemptions for the wealthy and politically cnnected to avoid being drafted.
Registering for the draft does not mean someone will be drafted. Even during times of war exemptions have always been granted for a whole host of reasons - occupation, health, fitness, marital status, dependent children, age, etc.
whereby we protect one male for every ten females--the optimal breeding ratio
WTF?? Optimal breeding ratio for generations of feeble minded and genetically compromised.
Women are suing to get into combat units. The Navy and Air Force have fighter pilots. They want to be equal, so draft them. Live by the rules you want to impose on others.
Ann says only women can have children. Do they have children without sperm? Now, they don't have to have sex to get pregnant but they sure as Hell need a males sperm. So shouldn't men be protected from serving so that they can provide the needed sperm?
If men can be drafted to fight but women exempt because they can have babies, we should be able to legally draft women to have babies, right?
If we can make people fight and die, we can make them give birth. Which would you rather do?
About time too. Of course women have been in combat roles already and performed well.
Israel has been drafting women for quite a sometime now and it seems to be working well for them.
It is, but it is also evolutionary. So, with sense and sensibility... #DuckDynasties
“If men can be drafted to fight but women exempt because they can have babies, we should be able to legally draft women to have babies, right?”
“If we can make people fight and die, we can make them give birth. Which would you rather do?”
Shades of the Handmaid’s Tale. I feel like adding a LOL but if these two commenters are serious it’s not funny at all.
“As a part of a qualifying course in the Army my son did a brisk, timed 25 mile hike carrying a 60 pound pack. Might there be other physical differences other than child bearing that matter?”
My son recently finished his Basic and AIT training, and, while it’s clear that the Army welcomes female recruits, they are becoming ever more selective about who they will accept and who can stay (this applies to men too, obviously). One third of the people who started with his training company did not, for a variety of reasons, graduate. That’s a remarkable winnowing considering we’re talking about the entry level of a profession.
I guess the point is that the possibility you could be drafted does not obligate the military to actually use you. Consequently they’ll take more men than women. And few women will complain.
A conflation of sexes.
THIS is what they have been fighting for.
Some, yes. Notably those who sacrifice women for political, social, and personal progress. Who demand immigration reform or population replacement (e.g. democratic gerrymandering, diversity). Also, the elective abortionists, clinical cannibals. And the men who lust, who tax, but do not love them.
Feminists fight their battles in the womb against unwanted, inconvenient, profitable fetuses... babies. The Twilight Amendment to The Constitution ensures that they are ethically and legally empowered to make summary judgments and execute cruel and unusual punishments of those they deem unworthy of life. This is why progressive liberals are vehemently opposed to freedom of speech and an armed population. Send out the abortionists, send out the feminists, send out the clowns.
Exactly why were women excluded from going to war in the past?
Is our society better or worse off today because of it?
A good example of the philosophy of the fence rule: Don't tear the fence down until you understand why it was erected.
MayBee: If we can make people fight and die, we can make them give birth. Which would you rather do?
Maybe Althouse has a set of totally non-silly incentives, complementary to her program outlined @10:21, that will require "absolutely no bullies at all" to get men to fight and die.
Shades of the Handmaid’s Tale. I feel like adding a LOL but if these two commenters are serious it’s not funny at all.
I'm not sure which two commenters you are referring to, but I made the statement.
I'm not joking, but I'm not serious either. I'm asking what is the logical difference? How you can force meant to be drafted to fight and die, and not force women to conceive and give birth. It's not what I'm for, but I do want someone to tell me why women should be excluded from having the government control their bodies (in a time of war).
*should be "force men to fight and die"
Another step for equality.
“My son recently finished his Basic and AIT training, and, while it’s clear that the Army welcomes female recruits, they are becoming ever more selective about who they will accept and who can stay (this applies to men too, obviously). One third of the people who started with his training company did not, for a variety of reasons, graduate. That’s a remarkable winnowing considering we’re talking about the entry level of a profession.
I guess the point is that the possibility you could be drafted does not obligate the military to actually use you. Consequently they’ll take more men than women. And few women will complain.”
My daughter first did four years in the Army, then she joined the Navy. My daughter not only completed Navy boot camp (she wouldn’t have had to, but she chose to) she completed FMSS, then she went before the board to obtain her FMF pin while serving with the Marines in Afghanistan. While she was in Afghanistan, she was there when the Taliban cut through the perimeter fence of Camp Leatherneck and attacked the camp. It was a combat situation. The women served well. No special privileges. Nothing was made easier for a female. She’s now a Navy Chief. She’s very feminine out of uniform, is heterosexual and is married.
“After you complete your 8-weeks of really tough training (12 mile hikes with 60 pound packs! Carrying a field litter with a 200-pound mannequin over fields and dales and through rivers! Yay!), you earn your shield and 8084 rating, and are qualified to deploy with a Marine Corps unit.
From that, you become an FMF Corpsman.”
“How you can force meant to be drafted to fight and die, and not force women to conceive and give birth. It's not what I'm for, but I do want someone to tell me why women should be excluded from having the government control their bodies (in a time of war).”
Wow. Should a man be forced to donate sperm to be used to impregnate women in a time of war? Are you equating conceiving and giving birth with serving in the military in a time of war? Just gotta shake my head here.
“After you complete your 8-weeks of really tough training (12 mile hikes with 60 pound packs! Carrying a field litter with a 200-pound mannequin over fields and dales and through rivers! Yay!), you earn your shield and 8404 rating, and are qualified to deploy with a Marine Corps unit.
From that, you become an FMF Corpsman.”
Congress considered removing the female exemption in 2016 but didn’t pass the legislation.
Ask Klobuchar, Harris, Warren, and Gillibrand why they aren’t pushing for this equality?
It's a road to symbolic physical equality, with no particular cost.
Me too Ann (no pun intended) - I also exist because women can join the military. My parents met in the Navy. My mother FAILED the nursing program - kicked out due to her terrible bedside manner. They transferred her to the same department my dad worked in. Three months later...married.
"Also look into the murder of karen hultgren. Putting her in an f14 and letting her do carrier landings was murder pure and simple. Just to do a social experiment."
That wasn't murder. Hultgren wanted so much to be a naval combat aviator. (I know, I discussed it with her once, but she never revealed "why"). She did everything to become one, and the Navy went along, because it was told to do so. The F-14 was well known to lose an engine in a yaw (something to do with its engine's dislike for not having air rushing straight in). It was also known to become totally out of control at low speeds when one engine was full power and the other was not operating. One assumes she knew that and either ignored it or forgot it. She, like so many other "wanna-be" naval aviators was damn good but not good enough. She made many mistakes before she killed herself. The navy was in a box, it couldn't demote her from a "combat" aviator to another type of aviator, as it did with so many male aviators.
For the record, I was never a pilot, but had so many combat pilot clients and friends, I heard the scuttlebutt about about this and many other such incidents. Her incident was all the talk at the time. The navy guys theme was "Nobody ever did what she did".
Wow. Should a man be forced to donate sperm to be used to impregnate women in a time of war? Are you equating conceiving and giving birth with serving in the military in a time of war? Just gotta shake my head here.
I am equating two different ways the sexes can be forced to serve in times of war. Althouse says women have been excluded - and possibly should be continued to be excluded - from the draft because they can procreate.
So I am saying, if men can be legally forced to use their bodies to fight to the point of death for the good of the nation during war, why can women not legally bow forced to use their bodies for the very reason they are being excluded from being killed.
Don't just shake your head. Tell me *why* they are so very different-- and why drafting for death is *better* than drafting for pregnancy.
Now I know you, Inga, say women should be drafted to combat. So that pretty much precludes drafting women to pregnancy. But *if* they are excluded because they can give birth, why is a pregnancy draft not equal to what is required of men?
(and how in the world can donating sperm be seen as *worse* than being drafted to fight in battle? Maybe we should give men the choice!! When the next war comes, do you want to go into combat or do you want to donate sperm?)
I think given the current state of the US, we will absolutely never have a draft again.
There is no circumstance under which half the population would consider it a worthwhile goal to fight and possibly die for the United States. Nearly half the population considers the United States the enemy. And a good chunk beyond that believes in nothing more that consuming food and drink and clothes and the internet until they die.
Try to picture any circumstance that the left in the United States would approve of any war in which the United States would fight. Even the most existential. The Chinese literally marching across Alaska and Canada. The entire continent of Africa getting on a boat and showing up on the east coast. You can't imagine it, can you? It is unthinkable that the left would be for a draft that saves the US, and wouldn't be actively for the other side.
And as they hold half the political power in the United States, and the entire education system and the entire entertainment and news media superstructure of the West, that means no draft ever, forever. I'm actually surprised registration is still around. It's still around for the same reason there isn't Open Borders yet, just because the left doesn't want to tip their traitor hand until they have the political power to be unopposed.
Which they thought would be when Hillary was elected, hence the massive hissy fit of the last 2 1/2 years.
“Now I know you, Inga, say women should be drafted to combat. So that pretty much precludes drafting women to pregnancy. But *if* they are excluded because they can give birth, why is a pregnancy draft not equal to what is required of men?”
Pregnancy “DRAFT”. Jesus. I really cannot understand how getting pregnant, carrying a baby and giving birth can be FORCED on a woman. The idea is disturbing and disgusting and even the Nazi’s didn’t force women to have children, that I know of. The Lebensborn Program was voluntary, no? Maybe not, I’ll have to go look it up. Having babies is something that should be approached with love, love of partner/ husband, love of the baby, and love of being a parent. How would a woman forced into childbearing possibly love the child? Some would, but many would not. What would happen to the children? Would they be put in some federal run orphanage?
“Now I know you, Inga, say women should be drafted to combat.”
BTW, not all people who were or would be drafted were drafted to combat roles, male or female.
Althouse said:
5. Absolutely no bullies at all. None of those scary bad guys in "Handmaid's Tale." They'll be sent off to war or useless. There will be nothing about needing to have sex with a man you don't want.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
MayBee: If we can make people fight and die, we can make them give birth. Which would you rather do?
Maybe Althouse has a set of totally non-silly incentives, complementary to her program outlined @10:21, that will require "absolutely no bullies at all" to get men to fight and die.
=======
Precisely! Althouse, why would we need a draft for men if positive propaganda will work? Why will women be given the cushion of responding to an "Uncle Sam Wants YOU" poster, but men still need the threat of the law to get them to participate?
I KNOW why--- because the thought of dying on a foreign beach is worse than the thought of having a baby for the country.
So again....we are letting women slide. We are being inequitable.
Of course, we could always just draft women and men to combat to keep things equal.
Inga:
Pregnancy “DRAFT”. Jesus. I really cannot understand how getting pregnant, carrying a baby and giving birth can be FORCED on a woman.
How can dying on the beaches of Normandy be FORCED on a man?
How would a woman forced into childbearing possibly love the child? Some would, but many would not. What would happen to the children? Would they be put in some federal run orphanage?
I don't know? Where will all the kids go when women are drafted? Why can't a women drafted to pregnancy love her child? We assume men drafted to war will love their country.
“Where will all the kids go when women are drafted?”
With the other parent or with grandparents. One parent should be allowed to stay with the children, then after a while it would be the other parents turn. Things would have to be pretty dire to have a draft.
“I KNOW why--- because the thought of dying on a foreign beach is worse than the thought of having a baby for the country.”
Wow, just wow. You think forcing a woman to have a child for the state would be patriotic or noble ? What about the CHILD? You are introducing a completely innocent life into the equation of your brave new good Female Breeder World. How would a woman be anything less than a breeder under such circumstances of FORCED pregnancy?
I have FOUR children made in love, carried in love, given birth to in love, and raised with love. Choosing to have children is next to sacred
If there is no draft how did this lawsuit proceed into and through the courts?
You are introducing a completely innocent Ive into the equation of your brave new good Female Breeder World. How would a woman be anything less than a breeder under such circumstances of FORCED pregnancy?
How is a man anything less than a killer or cannon fodder under circumstances of FORCED combat?
I agree that choosing to have children is next to sacred. So is choosing to die for a cause.
But if we need people to have babies, and we need people to die, both for our country, I don't see how a draft is worse in the case of pregnancy.
Do you think drafting someone into combat is good? Forcing someone's innocent precious son into the brave new Male Death World?
Maybee,
Maybe you should watch the Prime video series “Man in a High Castle”.
Traditionally, the victorious enemy impregnates the women.
Well, military service is a multi-role service, but it would be progressive and extremely liberal to draft women, unless there is an existential crisis. Women should have a choice of vocations, not children conceived following two choices. In Stork We Trust is a weird faith that is a first-order forcing of unprecedented collateral damage. That said, the draft issue is another blue herring in as many days.
Do you think that WW2 would’ve been won without a draft?
There must be a military role for chicks with dicks.
The draft probably is to enable Trump to seal the friendship deal with North Korea with an exchange of women.
Both sides will figure they're coming out ahead.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Do you think that WW2 would’ve been won with a draft?
You mean without a draft?
I don't know. I'm guessing we wouldn't have done stupid WWI if there hadn't been a draft. But we did draft young men, from the civil war on, and they have lived under sometimes horrible conditions, with little food and few comforts, asked them to perform the impossible with their bodies, asked them to take lives and to give their life, to see their friends die horrible deaths, and often come home with PTSD and/or fellow citizens calling them baby killers.
If you can make the argument that *that* is ok, but a pregnancy draft isn't ok, make that argument. But I think we just see it as different because we women have been coddled for all of these centuries, and we aren't willing to admit it because we want to make political points screaming about the sanctity of *our* bodies. When we have - and are still willing to - felt free to avail ourselves of men's strong bodies.
why is a pregnancy draft not equal to what is required of men
Most women and men take their commitment to "our Posterity" seriously. So, a draft would not be necessary. Humans, male and female, would do what couples do, and there would be evolutionary fitness. Dodos are still a minority. Men have a role, women have a role, and we reconcile sex, male and female, and gender, masculine and feminine, when they are not a factor.
Per rhhardin: Traditionally, the victorious enemy impregnates the women.
Exactly as it should be.
That wasn't murder. Hultgren wanted so much to be a naval combat aviator.
John Henry was right: it was murder.
Hultgren's grades would have shown any male student aviator the door, no matter how much they wanted to be a combat aviator.
Per Kevin @ 12:52: But, if we had a civil war, which side would win? The one with the trained military or the one with the snowflakes?
nn- you are saying why you think it would not be necessary. But I'm asking why one is considered horrifying and off limits (pregnancy draft) and one is considered just fine (death draft).
“Traditionally, the victorious enemy impregnates the women.”
“Exactly as it should be.”
Women drafted for the Rape.
“But we did draft young men, from the civil war on, and they have lived under sometimes horrible conditions, with little food and few comforts, asked them to perform the impossible with their bodies, asked them to take lives and to give their life, to see their friends die horrible deaths, and often come home with PTSD and/or fellow citizens calling them baby killers.”
WW2 would not have been won without the draft, of Americans and allied nations.
“If you can make the argument that *that* is ok, but a pregnancy draft isn't ok, make that argument. But I think we just see it as different because we women have been coddled for all of these centuries, and we aren't willing to admit it because we want to make political points screaming about the sanctity of *our* bodies. When we have - and are still willing to - felt free to avail ourselves of men's strong bodies.”
I’m in favor of women being drafted. Why is that “willing” to avail ourselves of only “men’s strong bodies”? If you think women aren’t strong or capeable, that might be part of your problem. Were you there when my daughter was under fire from the Taliban during the Camp Bastion/ Camp Leatherneck attack in 2012? Women can do more than have babies.
I’m in favor of women being drafted. Why is that “willing” to avail ourselves of only “men’s strong bodies”? If you think women aren’t strong or capeable, that might be part of your problem. We’re you there when my daughter was under fire from the Taliban during the Camp Bastion/ Camp Leatherneck attack in 2012? Women can do more than have babies.
I agree!
I'm not the one arguing women shouldn't be drafted into combat, if we are having the draft! That's Althouse (and all the people arguing against women in combat).
Right now, we have only men register for the draft. Since the civil war, until a few years ago, only men were drafted into war. Through most of time, men have fought the wars. Young men have died in great numbers for this country in war.
If we are going to have equality, let's have it!
BUT if we are saying women can't be drafted because they can procreate- if that's the reason women are trying to stay out of the draft - *then* I am saying an equal thing would be to draft women to procreate.
We can not be both equal and too special to do something unpleasant in wartime.
“and how in the world can donating sperm be seen as *worse* than being drafted to fight in battle? Maybe we should give men the choice!! When the next war comes, do you want to go into combat or do you want to donate sperm?)”
Somehow I don’t think donating sperm would’ve helped win WW2.
“BUT if we are saying women can't be drafted because they can procreate- if that's the reason women are trying to stay out of the draft - *then* I am saying an equal thing would be to draft women to procreate.”
We can not be both equal and too special to do something unpleasant in wartime.”
You were also arguing that giving the woman an ultimatum of either having a child or be drafted was an acceptable thing to do. It’s not and that is why you were wrong and your argument is fallible. Giving a child to the state is far more awful than merely doing something unpleasant. It’s a disgusting proposition. The baby is human, not a trading commodity.
"Maybe we should give men the choice!! When the next war comes, do you want to go into combat or do you want to donate sperm?)”
................
Maybe we should give women the choice!! When the next war comes, do you want to go into combat or do you want to donate a future soldier?)”
Serving one’s country, not servicing one’s country might be seen as patriotic. In Nazi Germany servicing one’s country was noble.
You were also arguing that giving the woman an ultimatum of either having a child or be drafted was an acceptable thing to do. It’s not and that is why you were wrong and your argument is fallible Giving a child to the state is far more awful than merely doing something unpleasant. It’s a disgusting proposition. The baby is human, not a trading commodity.
Why would you have to give the child to the state? The mother could raise the child. As I see it, the only child that might be given to the state is the child whose parents go into combat or the child who loses his parents in combat.
Why is it wrong to give the option? Would you rather have a baby, or storm the beach at Normandy? You, Inga, what would you choose? How about Althouse? Which would you choose? I know what I would choose. I mean, I actually know what I have chosen. I have two kids, but I've never served in the military.
Exactly, Full Moon!
“The mother could raise the child.”
How would a woman forced into bearing a child in order not to get drafted feel toward the innocent child? How would it be fair to an innocent child to be brought into the world under such circumstances?
“Why is it wrong to give the option? Would you rather have a baby, or storm the beach at Normandy? You, Inga, what would you choose? How about Althouse? Which would you choose? I know what I would choose. I mean, I actually know what I have chosen. I have two kids, but I've never served in the military.”
No such choice should ever be forced upon a woman in a democratic society. I really don’t understand how you can even seriously argue this.
Blogger Gahrie said...
How about this...we pass an amendment that says you don't have the right to vote unless you register for the draft?
That was a theme in Starship Troopers.
The baby is human, not a trading commodity.
Tell that to Althouse...she was the one suggesting that we bribe women to have children.
No such choice should ever be forced upon a woman in a democratic society. I really don’t understand how you can even seriously argue this.
Men have been fighting and dying in wars for as long as there have been men. We've gotten used to it. We've gotten callous about the fact that they will do it, and that our country has forced them/asked them to do it. Maybe we forget about the draft riots when Lincoln instituted the draft. People didn't want it. It was an outrage. But then it was accepted through the horrible Viet Nam war. We can send boys in their late teens and fathers in their 40s over to the trenches of Europe for virtually no reason, call it "The Great War", and the force of law will make them do it, and we'll call them cowards if they can't handle it.
All I'm asking is we challenge our assumptions about what is acceptable in times of great need. The idea that we can send young men to starve and die and lose limbs and be traumatized is only ok because we've gotten used to doing it.
It's only ok if you see men and women as not equal, if you are going to allow women to have no similar governmental claims to their bodies.
Why should women not have any horrors forced upon them. (and I know you, Inga, are ok with drafting women into combat.) Why should women not have to make any awful options in the time of great need for their country?
I really think it only seems so awful because we aren't used to making women do awful things, but we are used to making men do awful things.
Maybee, your “Proposition” would make a good book or movie though. Another blockbuster, like The Handmaid’s Tale. Oh heck, it should be called “The Proposition” or “The Choice”.
Right, Inga? It really would. It would be better than the Handmaid's Tale.
nn- you are saying why you think it would not be necessary. But I'm asking why one is considered horrifying and off limits (pregnancy draft) and one is considered just fine (death draft).
I suppose in an existential crisis, there is no difference in each demand. In an existential crisis, men and women step forward to fill the role given to them by Nature. However, a minority do not. Perhaps both men and women should be drafted in an application most suited to their qualifications.
thank you for your answer, nn. That's how I see it too. Although to be clear, that's not how I want it.
Time for women to 'MAN UP' and be drafted. Gonna be interesting when a shooten war comes to see them in the field.
Then we will see how it all works out.
Gonna be interesting when a shooten war comes to see them in the field.
A female helicopter pilot was shot down in the Iraq War. Her wrist were fractured and she could not defend herself but the Iraqis who wanted to rape her could not figure out how to unzip her flight suit. Fortunately for her, the enemy was not very mechanical.
Start indoctrinating the kids now. By time they are of age, they will accept it as the norm. They do not have have not like it.
Restrictions, of course. Fit, single, 18-24 etc.
“Right, Inga? It really would. It would be better than the Handmaid's Tale.”
Better yet call it “The Ultimatum”.
Hagar said...
Go to the local Walmart and tell all the young ladies you see that they should not get married and have babies until they have served a stint in the military.
You'd be surprised at how many of the women you'd meet at your typical Wal-Mart have aleady done that.
The real place to make that pronouncement would be Park Slope, Brooklyn.
A female helicopter pilot was shot down in the Iraq War. Her wrist were fractured and she could not defend herself but the Iraqis who wanted to rape her could not figure out how to unzip her flight suit. Fortunately for her, the enemy was not very mechanical.
How did she escape? I hope the Iraqis were killed.
Good thing they had no knife.
Met a woman in the 1980's still mourning her helicopter pilot son lost in viet nam and never recovered.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Truck drivers [Queen Elizabeth was one in WWII]
Ralph L said: She was trained to be a truck mechanic.
Cool. Better yet! Thanks for the correction.
Actually it was both. HM was a truck driver and part of the job was simple maintenance and troubleshooting of your vehicle.
A judge in Texas just declared that it is a living Constitution. The past and current mores make courts come up with opposing conclusions.
Inga- I think we just call it The Draft.
That's how I see it too. Although to be clear, that's not how I want it.
Yeah, neither do I. While I have your attention. I'm curious, you may have read my comments on diversity, political congruence ("="), immigration reform, elective abortion, etc. I think my characterization of each is correct, but I also understand why they are promoted as solutions in each of their respective categories. And the latest, insufficient forces on the ground to secure infrastructure and populations, thereby forcing refugee crises, which is then redistributed, further reducing the homogeneity of target populations, and, in my opinion, other motives, as well as their capacity and will to unite and sustain conflicts. Placing women in harm's way provokes a conditioned response, which will presumably cause men and women to oppose conflicts. Is this a not so good, even wicked (e.g. abortion for social stability), means to an end... a desirable end, and can it be effective?
A female helicopter pilot was shot down in the Iraq War. Her wrist were fractured and she could not defend herself but the Iraqis who wanted to rape her could not figure out how to unzip her flight suit. Fortunately for her, the enemy was not very mechanical.
Lara Logan should have been wearing a flight suit.
DEEBEE observes: A judge in Texas just declared that it is a living Constitution. The past and current mores make courts come up with opposing conclusions.
Yeah, some say that about the Bible, too. Let's just change what we doesn't fit our current mores. :-(
How did she escape? I hope the Iraqis were killed.
Good thing they had no knife.
She was a POW. I forget how she got back. Probably at the end of the war,
The story.
It sounds like she did eventually get raped.
John Henry left out another collision. The total loss of the Norwegian frigate KNM Helge Ingstad on 8 November last year. During navigation exercises no less. With the exact same proximate cause as the USS Fitzgerald collision. The female CICWO watch officer and the female OOD weren't getting along with each other.
Two totally avoidable collisions. Two different navies. Because women couldn't put their personal conflicts aside and communicate professionally. I'd like to say that's rare, but anyone and everyone who's worked in any jobs with females has seen it. The consequences in retail are inconsequential if two females are in conflict. The consequences shipboard have proven to be deadly and expensive. And both these collisions were without the added stress of combat.
I went through Navy firefighter school several times. Everyone on board ship, from cook to captain, is a firefighter should the need arises. I saw exactly two people freeze and refuse to enter the burning compartment to extinguish the fire. Both junior female officers. Neither was shitcanned from their command. A male, officer or not, would be on his way out of the Navy for not conquering their fear.
It sounds like she did eventually get raped.
I remember a flight surgeon whose leg was broken. She was violated with non-dicks.
Some of the male Naval aviators were rape-raped and said so in a press conference. Must be hell with fighter pilot hemorrhoids.
"WW2 would not have been won without the draft, of Americans and allied nations."
WWII would have been won if all the U.S. did after Pearl Harbor was to defend our coasts and build the A-Bomb.
But the bigger issue is that you recoil in horror at the idea of young women being forcibly impregnated but are unmoved by the idea of young men being forced to storm the beaches of Normandy while being cut down by machine-gun fire or blown to bits by bombs and artillery. The latter is viewed as traditional and necessary, you say? Well so was slavery for most of human history.
Nobody is arguing that enslaving young women to breed is not horrific. We're only saying that, objectively considered, it is much less horrific than enslaving young men to participate in Picket's charge or Normandy or WWI trench warfare. Go watch 'They Shall Not Grow Old' and get back to us on whether you think forced pregnancy is worse that being forced to climb out of the trenches and charge into barbed wire and machine guns.
Ralph L said: She was trained to be a truck mechanic.
No wonder she could appreciate Margaret Thatcher.
“But the bigger issue is that you recoil in horror at the idea of young women being forcibly impregnated but are unmoved by the idea of young men being forced to storm the beaches of Normandy while being cut down by machine-gun fire or blown to bits by bombs and artillery.”
Um...no. I am not unmoved by the idea of young men being forced to storm the beaches of Normandy. How many of those young men would have proudly taken the choice of donating sperm instead of serving thier country in the military during wartime? Men in those days weren’t whiny little snowflakes like so many of you seem to be now.
“Nobody is arguing that enslaving young women to breed is not horrific. We're only saying that, objectively considered, it is much less horrific than enslaving young men to participate in Picket's charge or Normandy or WWI trench warfare. Go watch 'They Shall Not Grow Old' and get back to us on whether you think forced pregnancy is worse that being forced to climb out of the trenches and charge into barbed wire and machine guns.”
Did I say that forced pregnancy was worse than being drafted into the military and dying serving one’s country? Why don’t you think women should serve alongside the men who are drafted? Why should they be FORCED to bear children for the Fatherland instead? You sound like a Nazi, sorry, but you do.
Put on your big girl panties and stop whining.
or go commando
Inga is quite right. Without the draft we could not have fielded an army in Europe in WWII. Or WWI for that matter.
65% of all military in WWII were draftees.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor there was a runs of people joining up to fight the Japanese. Nobody in their right mind thought that the US had any business getting into yet another war in Europe after the fiasco that was WWI.In November 1941, 75% of the US population was against US involvement in Europe.
We had not interest in being involved in 1938-1941 other than FDR maneuvering the Germans into declaring war against us. (By giving aid to Britain, sinking German submarines, occupying Iceland and more)
65% of all US military in WWII were there involuntarily. Much higher in the Army.
The more history I read over the years, the more convinced I am that we had no interest in WWII-European edition.
FWIW, I question whether we should be in NATO. Let Europe deal with Europe's problems.
John Henry
Blogger Paul Ciotti said...
Blogger Gahrie said...
How about this...we pass an amendment that says you don't have the right to vote unless you register for the draft?
That was a theme in Starship Troopers.
===============
My recollection of the book, never saw the movie, was that serving in the military was a pre-requisite for full citizenship and voting.
I would have no problem with giving military and ex military extra votes. Everyone gets one vote like now. Serve 4 years or more in the military with honorable discharge and get an additional vote.
John Henry
Service in Starship Troopers was a requirement for voting or holding office. If not qualified for the military, something would be found for you to do. Pushing a broom for a few years on a city street. Digging ditches. If disabled, sitting on a corner counting cars. Something would be found, often unpleasant, in government service.
There is no current need for a draft; that isn't guaranteed to always be the case. I am of the opinion that women shouldn't be in combat and shouldn't be drafted. Activists, political leaders, and a judge think otherwise, so when some day emergency calls and a whole bunch of young women get drafted and are forced to serve in the role the government deems, they can thank their elders for trading the feminine privilege of choosing to remain non-combatant civilians for...vanity perhaps?
It is true that The Constitution and ten amendments indulge neither diversity nor sexism nor genderism nor summary judgments nor cruel and unusual punishment. That was before assertion of the Twilight Amendment, where everything PC is now legal and ethical, if not actually Constitutional and moral.
trading the feminine privilege of choosing to remain non-combatant civilians for...vanity perhaps
It's like the #MeToo movement, where feminists sacrificed women for political, social, financial, and personal progress without responsibility, accountability. PC (e.g. Pro-Choice) is not limited to age discrimination, in the human fetal stage... of babies.
All total wars force a shift to a totalitarian state, that is, to something some would ignorantly call "fascist".
Every combatant in WWII, and for that matter WWI, was obliged to severely restrict its peoples liberty, limiting their speech, their movement, their economic options, regulating this and and that and, in the end, creating what amounted to, for the duration, a sort of socialism, no matter how capitalist they had been.
And moreover, in all cases, there was a powerful element of coordinated domestic propaganda in all public messaging. Even in the US there wss a propaganda line issued to the entire MSM. And then there was the matter of a police state, which was implemented to a degree in every combatant nation.
As noted above, the "draft" is ancient.
Every civilization and pre-civilization had something like it.
In all tribal societies, probably, every man is a warrior and is trained, or trains himself, to fight. This is so ubiquitous, so universal, but so unmentionable.
Its amazing to think that Kalinga hillmen in Far East Asia do this same social thing as the Yanomamo tribe of the Orinoco, as did the ancient Celts of Western Europe, as did their civilized neighbors in the Greek city-states and the Roman republic.
And in none of them were the women expected to fight.
All of this seems hard-coded in human biology.
DBQ said... Drone pilots....
Maybe a year ago, I saw a move, Drone, with Sean Bean: a government contractor who flies an armed drone in a combat zone.
I can’t find an argument against women in a combat zone, but it doesn’t sit well. Maybe I’m sexist to think so, as some may proscribe, but when SHTF, men and women have very unique capabilities.
Having women on ‘sandwich’ duty, in the name of equality, doesn’t sit well with me, either.
The Althouse's Tale is a very silly attempt to picture how women would be mobilized if necessary to maintain the population.
What I picture is: Komm, Frau!
Had WWII not swung the way we wanted, Truman's administration was close to institution conscription for women. As a man required to sign up for selective services, I have little patience for women that find some reason that's okay, but it's not to give women a pass.
The childbirth angle doesn't work. Besides the contemporary (radical) notion that men can now have babies too (hey...if there's such a thing as a woman's penis, there's such a thing as a man's uterus), an overwhelming majority of military jobs have little to do with direct involvement in combat. Support? Sure thing, but that support comes in the form of admin (office) jobs such as legal, payroll, records, education, etc. Motor pool, logistics, chow hall, civil engineering, etc, etc, etc. There is no excuse, in this day and age, for women not to have to do the exact same thing men have to unless they want to suffer the same consequences.
Anything less makes any serious discussion of feminism or equality farcical at best.
Either remove the requirement or require everyone.
Post a Comment