Re: ERA War and the Draft

More | Report Post

On 1/05/03, Dave Behrens wrote:
> . . .
> The United States Selective Service System offers on its
> Website a short history of the draft with respect to women.
> The primary reason given for non-registration of women is a
> twenty-year-old Supreme Court decision, Rostker v. Goldberg,
> 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
>
> Simply stated, this decision says that since all men
> registered with the Selective Service are considered combat
> replacements, and since Congress forbids women to go into
> combat, women should not be registered. Of course, this
> reasoning is absolutely absurd, since it presupposes that
> every man called for involuntary military service will be
> used exclusively for combat, and that no man called will be
> used for the approximately 90&37; of military jobs which are
non-
> combat related.

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.

> Twenty years after Rostker, the Uniformed Military Training
> Service Act (H.R. 3598) attempts a draft reformation by
> shortening the length of involuntary service, but still
> perpetuates gender discrimination by maintaining the
> requirement of involuntary service for all males registered
> under the Military Selective Service Act and exempting
> absolutely all females.
>
> Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of
> gender discrimination:
>
> 1. U.S. women enjoy the same civil rights as U.S. men; they
> comprise 50.9&37; of the population and18.8&37; of all
military
> personnel. 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).

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.

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.

> 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.
Most women are very attached to either their husbands,
boyfriends, fathers, brothers, or sons, and so will think
carefully before supporting a war.

> 3. Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funds
> be used for all school-based activities that receive any
> federal funding, including athletics. Many schools have had
> to abandon male team sports that earn revenue in excess of
> their costs . . . .

Isn't that a shame? It also makes no economic sense, especially
in today's economy.

> . . . 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.

I think Title IX is either poorly written, or poorly
implemented, or both.

> 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.

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

Equal Rights Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST