Re: ERA War and the Draft

More | Report Post

On 9/02/03, Shmuel Goldstein wrote:

> I don't think it's absurd. Every man drafted, is POTENTIALLY a
> combat soldier. The women, at this stage of the game, are not.

The Rostker Supreme Court decision is based on the supposition
that absolutely every male involuntarily registered SERVES AS A
COMBAT SOLDIER IF DRAFTED. Further, no male involuntarily
registered and drafted may serve in any capacity other than
combat. The Rostker decision does not mention potential in any
way.
******************************************************************

>>... Why is the pretext of a ridiculous Supreme Court
>> decision used to exempt the majority of the population from
>> even the possibility of involuntary military service in any
>> capacity?
>
> As I said, I don't think it's ridiculous. I am an American ex-
> patriate living in Israel for the last 20 years. Here, 18 y/o
> girls are drafted, just like the boys, *but* it is VERY easy
> for a girl to get out of it: marriage, pregnancy, a religious-
> based exemption, or alternative national service (in various
> social-services roles) - all are legitimate reasons for a young
> woman to not serve in the regular Army. Also, for the women who
> *do* serve in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), they serve 24
> months, and not 36 like the boys, and they are never called for
> reserve duty. The men are called up every year until age 45 (55
> for non-combat roles).

If males were allowed the same exemptions described in the
paragraph above (with fatherhood replacing pregnancy or
motherhood) from military service as females in this country,
no gender bias would exist. I simply cannot imagine why female
gender incapacitates a woman to such an extent that she requires
shorter terms of active involuntary service and no reserve duty
whatsoever.
******************************************************************

> In addition, the women are not given combat roles at all. BUT,
> they can and do serve in clerical positions, as drill
> sergeants, and in many other areas that does not take them in
> to the battlefield.

It is totally ridiculous that female soldiers in the American and
Israeli Armies are used as Drill Sergeants teaching Basic Combat
Training (BCT), as it is called in the US Army, when they are
specifically forbidden, solely by reason of their gender, from
serving in and thereby gaining insight into combat operations.
******************************************************************

> There are many reasons why this is so, but I will mention two
> of the main ones: Women are much more susceptible to rape at
> the hands of the enemy, and (and this is the kicker, IMHO) men
> are simply more aggressive and ornery than women are. A
> fighting soldier needs that orneryness - that willingingness to
> go out and kick some butt and rip the enemy to shreds. Then
> there's the physical strength issue.

Captured male soldiers are subject to the same atrocities as
captured female soldiers, including rape.

Males, and males exclusively, are the arbitors of 'orneryness'?
Have you ever been married?

I love the argument that women are simply too weak to fully serve
in all branches and all jobs in the military. Recent law in the
US has used 'gender norming' to circumvent all former physical
size and strength requirements, permitting women to serve as
police, firefighters, forest rangers, smoke jumpers, and military
cadets when they would not have met former minimum physical
requirements. Should gender norming physical requirements be
used solely for those jobs which females voluntarily choose to
perform, but not used in involuntary military service? You can't
have it both ways. Females would make great little
Scout/Snipers, with their proven superior hand-eye coordination
and smaller (target) size.
******************************************************************


>> 2. Should women be permitted to vote in elections for
>> candidates who may have to decide on war for our country, in
>> light of the facts that women will never serve involuntarily
>> in any military conflict and that even females who do
>> volunteer for military service are exempted from life
>> threatening combat jobs?
>
> I think so. As a man, I'm not bothered by this. There are some
> things in society that are for men, and some are for women.

The only 'things', i.e. jobs, that are exclusively male is sperm
donor, and exclusively female is wet nurse.
******************************************************************

>> . . . and which aid in the preparation of males for the
>> teamwork and organization of military service, in order to
>> provide gender-equal funding for female sports which
>> perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no requirement for
>> females to utilize the skills and strengths learned on the
>> athletic field and the classroom in the military defense of
>> their country. Should Title IX continue?
>
> First of all, I don't think organized sports are meant to train
> anyone for the military. Team work comes in handy in the
> workplace, and in life in general all the time.

The very invention of sports by humans was to train for war by
having mock war. Running, javelin throwing, archery, and shot
putting (rock throwing) are all based in ancient warfare.
******************************************************************

>> 4. Do equal civil rights for women obligate women to equal
>> civil responsibilities?
>
> In general, yes. But again, there are some things in society
> that are more appropriate for men, and some are more
> appropriate for women. I'm not going to go in to detail,
> because each society is different. But this myth that men and
> women are the same, except for the plumbing, is nonsense.

Is it 'more appropriate' to require by law, as in the US, only
one gender to involuntarily chance death in combat and exclude
absolutely the other gender from any involuntary military or
civil service whatsoever? Is it 'appropriate' to burden only one
gender with the possibility of six years of involuntary military
service, as in the US, yet exclude the other gender absolutely
from any involuntary responsibility to serve their country? Yet,
in civilian life apart from the military, guarantee exactly the
same civil rights for each gender, with no one gender having
superior rights.

Re: ERA War and the Draft, 10/14/05, by S.

Equal Rights Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST