Should U.S. women be required to register for Selective Service? Pagans speak out

41 thoughts on “Should U.S. women be required to register for Selective Service? Pagans speak out”

1. If we go to war, it should be via a draft that includes everyone, the wealthy and the poor, men and women. If the war isn’t worth killing the children of the powerful or women, then maybe we shouldn’t fight it.

   • The powerful parents usually manage to get their kids off from having to serve; the poor are always on the front lines, as a result, so the draft is hardest on the poor and underprivileged who don’t have the power to pull strings.

     • And so is the all volunteer army, in fact it’s worse.

2. In a poll about women being forced into “this mans army” no one has chosen to speak about vast numbers of women who joined voluntarily and have been sexually assaulted, not by the enemy, but by their own colleagues. Women should not be drafted, until the govt can guarantee safety and support against this

   • Yes, exactly. I’ve seen the military prosecutions against rapists firsthand, and unfortunately, they’re all too rare.

   • That strikes me as illogical. If women were subject to the draft on the same basis as men, they and their parents would demand better treatment and they would be a powerful political force.

     With an all volunteer army, the women who enlist are under pressure to keep silent in order not to wreck their careers.

     • Women becoming a part of the everyday work force hasn’t prevented men from sexually harassing women, promoting them less often, and paying them less money, so I disagree that becoming a defacto part of the infrastructure, or even making demands, will inherently lead to better treatment or greater safety. The armed forces are informed by patriarchal values, and these are what need to be dismantled before women can feel safe; unfortunately, this goes for all of society as well.

       • The conundrum is that the patriarchal values won’t be dismantled without the strong involvement of women in the armed forces. Having a critical mass of women in top command positions is key to dismantling the rape/harassment/discrimination culture. That critical mass was not happening because women were barred from combat roles, which tended to be the surest paths to promotion. I am glad to see that changing. As to a draft, I don’t see that happening in a modern military unless we end up in a desperate existential struggle for the homeland. In that event, I think everyone ought to do their part.

         • Agreed. Promoting women to positions and roles they desire is part of the dismantling, yet if all members are still required to adhere to certain norms, the patriarchy remains in place. The presence of women alone is not enough; valuing women’s ways of being in the world, and women’s voices and bodies, goes further.

3. Absolutely.

   But there is no draft and as no one in Congress seems willing to commit what would political suicide, it is doubtful there will be one.

   • I think many of them have committed political suicide already, were they in my district, even without the draft.

4. Since we have registration for men, I need a damn good reason to refrain from extending it to women. Who gets drafted, what roles they are assigned and how they are organized are later decisions, wherein concerns such as Alicia Mison’s might be addressed. That’s the kind of feminist I am.Of course, this whole discussion revolves around an assumption that there are only two sexes…

   • noticed that last…

   • I consider the safety of my person and of other women to be a damn good reason, and not a detail to be sorted out later. That’s the kind of feminist I am.

     • Hardly a detail. There is afaik no constitutional bar to women serving in female squadrons, with a female chain of command up several levels. This would get them out of harm’s way as they were going into another sort of harm’s way, and would let everyone be treated as equals.I would be interested in knowing how armed forces of other democracies that have women in combat roles, have addressed this problem.

       • There is no bar, but there are precious few actual female chains of command up to top levels, and not nearly enough to alter the pervasive rape culture of the armed forces. Men in the armed forces never experience the same threats and fears women face, so the field isn’t equal from the outset. The armed forces exist within a patriarchal culture, informed by patriarchal values, assumptions, and mores, which inherently sideline and undervalue female voices, experiences, and ways of being in the world. A patriarchy can’t ever create equality, because its very premise is grounded in male privilege and an alpha-male-style worldview and value set. Governmental forces therefore cannot effect equality through merely deciding where the women go; the patriarchy which informs our society and these institutions must be dismantled in order to begin to approach any semblance of actual, not shadow equality.

         • You speak of a few female chains of command. I know of none. Can you expand on that or share a link?To carry your argument to its logical conclusion, being kept out of the draft, as is the present situation, is a protection for women against all this patriarchy. I cannot concur.

         • I was referring to your comment about female chains of command; I know of none either. if they don’t exist, I am not sure how they are relevant to this topic of concern.

           Being kept out of or ordered into the draft is immaterial if the goal of inclusion is supposed to be equality. Treating men and women identically *in a system and institution which is already gender-biased* won’t produce equality, because it wasn’t built on it, so doesn’t foster or embody it in any way. Including women in the draft because men are isn’t what equality means.

         • relevant to this topicIf you have all-female squads, you want to avoid the chain of command that treats women’s complaints as a joke.I am not touting the draft as a panacea for patriarchy. I was doing a reductio ad absurdum on your position.

         • The entire system treats women’s complaints as a joke, it is part of the armed forces culture, just as it is part of all powerful institutions in our society. Women working in these systems suffer under them and advance through enduring them.

           You missed the point of my position, which wasn’t about protecting. The absurdity is expecting a patriarchal institution to be able to produce gender equality at all– it is incapable, being built on male privilege via female oppression.

         • I give up. I can’t discuss reforms with someone who categorically dismisses improvement as impossible. Have a nice day.

         • Dismantling misogyny and the patriarchy would be improvements, which I do not rule out as impossible. I haven’t denied the possibility of improvements though, just that those mentioned alone, without dismantling the underlying foundations of the institutions, can actually produce gender equality/justice. Band-aids alone won’t cut it.

         • I don’t expect inclusion of women in the draft to result in equality _within the military_. I am looking at how the current exemption from the draft affects women’s pursuit of equality _within American society as a whole_.

           I lived through the final years of no organized feminist movement, the first stirrings of Second Wave feminism, and everything that has come since. Even though the ERA didn’t pass, the laws of this country have effectively adopted most of it. At the same time, there have been massive changes in the attitudes of both sexes about women’s abilities, women’s roles and acceptable behavior for women. Patriarchy exists in varying degrees; Afghanistan is more patriarchal than 1955 America was, and America was more patriarchal in 1955 than it is today. I remember 1955.

           IMO, the status of women in the US has changed to the point that if we women continue to claim all the rights of citizenship equal to men while at the same time demanding to be exempted from a legal requirement men are under, to be taken from their homes at the order of the government, lose their rights to freedom of association and occupation, risk their lives and mental and physical health, and come home damaged if they come home at all, we’d better have a strong reason to back up our claim to keep that exemption. Otherwise we start to look like shirkers. The high incidence of rape in the military is a pretty strong reason, but I don’t think it will convince the public that exempting women from the draft is fair.

           This society is getting more militarized all the time. When I was younger, news people and politicians hardly ever referred to the President as the Commander in Chief. That was only one of his roles and not the most important one. Given the kind of society this is, women’s voices in politics will be heard with more respect and attention if they have experience of military service comparable to men’s. Also, I think politicians who have had military service tend to be more sceptical of the advice and information they get from military officers than politicians who have been civilians all their lives.

       • How did that work for African Americans in the military, such as the Tuskegee Airmen?

         • This history of race in this country generally is marred by segregation. I would not recommend it in the armed forces.

5. Women should be part of the draft. And the draft should be started back up. Having an all volunteer military has been to the detriment of our service members. I believe the war(s) we’ve been in would never have happened or would have ended quicker if everyone’s sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, were expected to participate. So yes, start it up again and put members of congress’ children at the head of the line.

   • I’m fond of the last part of that last idea. Too many politicians’ kids never served, when there was a draft, no matter what their “number”. Strings pulled.

   • Power and influence means it would never actually work out that way, as it seldom has. It’s always the poor and underprivileged who become cannon-fodder, and they were always the first to be conscripted. A draft won’t help, as it doesn’t eliminate the privilege and power factor.

     • Power and influence can’t be maintained when your constituents sons and daughters are being drafted and sent off to die. I believe that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars wouldn’t still be dragging out if there was a draft. Oh and a war economy. If the public doesn’t feel the pain they won’t do anything to stop anything.

6. As a Marine Vietnam Veteran, may I point out most of the Vietnamese we fought were of lighter weight then American women, so weight and strength mostly do not matter modern war, unless you are not talking about carrying or lifting heavy weight. That wold be the only limitation for lighter weight and weaker military personality. Now in some battle attitude may make a difference, such as infantry, where killing is close up and personal So attitude still might decide who you sent in even more importantly then size and strength.

   Personally I did not have the attitude for infantry, so I was made a horizontal chart operator for105 MM Howitzer. Any woman could have also done my job and most other jobs in the military if they had the right talents and training.

   Now one good side of this is with women on the front lines perhaps American start to question why are we going to war so often when our country is not directly threatened. Of course war is very profitable and the longer it goes on, the longer it remains profitable.

   Perhaps we should make it a law that those that invest in war industry should have their children, and grand children required to serve on the battle field, or perhaps we should stop making war so insanely profitable. Either of my two suggestions here just might decrease our urge to invade countries and have long term forever wars as we have now.

   • I like those suggestions. I would add another: All of the homegrown “militia” loons who like to carry their rifles around in public would be subject to immediate deployment in forward combat areas.

     • I have not problem with that. Those good old boys really do need a dose or reality. Been to war so I see nothing romantic about revolution which only means civil war. Especially when as the government has nukes and drones, even automatic weapons are not going to protect much if the government goes rogue. Is anyone dumb enough to think that the military is not going to defend the government, no matter how corrupt or rogue it becomes. That was the very reason why our ancestors were fearful of having a standing army and avoided it in the early part of our country’s history, raising armies only as needed. Any armed government is dangerous first to its own citizens. Does not matter what political system it has or what economic system it has.

   • You know, I don’t think innocent children/young adults should pay the price for someone else’s warmongering. Anyone who decides to go to war should be required to lead the charges in person in the most vulnerable positions they want to exist in the war. And anyone who goes with them should be able to decide whether they support the cause or not, including those within the military. There is no honor in obeying blindly a command to kill innocent people simply because it came from an authority figure.

     • I view Christopher’s suggestion on the flipside of your reaction: those bent on profiting from war might think thrice knowing that their own offspring might be amongst the first casualties. Shrug.

   • There are never enough or the right words, so this will have to suffice: all honor to you and your service, sir.

     One thought about the Viet Cong: they were fighting a guerilla war — that your commanders failed to make that a priority in training and strategy is what I consider a major failure — and they had clear lessons from WWII on that. The various “undergrounds” were effective in gathering intelligence and successful sabotage, and most of them were at least one-third women.

     • Just as our same tactics fail against terrorists, who are also using women. But our tactics are very profitable for the suppliers of our military and that is all that matters. Like Vietnam, the military leaders in the Pentagon was interested in continuing the war, not ending it. Then when they retire they can move over to working for the suppliers. Had Pentagon military leaders been interested in winning , then we would have changed tactics when what we were doing was not getting results. Our military used to know how to win wars. We need to get more leaders with recent battle field experience, and I mean those in the thick of the battles, not the generals hiding in comfortable quarters in the back ground. Long time past to be flushing the dead wood out of the Pentagon and replacing them with men and women who know how to fight and win. Much of our generals in our Pentagon are in their dotage, and got there not due talent but by knowing which ass to kiss and whose boots to lick.

7. If it has to be then ok. I have always felt a bit left out of popular feminism as a woman who loves rearing my children and nurturing– I don’t want to be pushed into the workforce for “my own good” and find the whole idea that women who are better at nurturing are inferior or should be ashamed (or paid less or not at all for caregiving when they want to be caregivers and aren’t as good at NOR WANT TO DO other things). I have been heartened to see the reproductive justice and womanist movements pushing harder for the right for resources to be caregivers and nurturers. Not all women specialize in caregiving and nurturing, but many do and I don’t think the sign of progress is that all mothers are forced into the workplace at the exact same rate as men who did not give birth or lactate and have the same bond. That bond doesn’t happen for all mothers and their babies but it does happen for many and when it does many mothers would prefer to keep staying at home or work part time because they WANT that bond and don’t appreciate being forced to obey other people’s notions of “equality” that takes them away from their kids. Working in violent professions can really destroy people and I agree with others mentioning that single parents should be able to stay home (whether men or women) as well as partners with kids be able to chose between them someone to go. Some women are excellent fighters, but I have read some research about double the injury rates and other issues. Honestly once we see how women actually do in combat that would impact my thoughts on it. I feel like as I learned about my needs related to pregnancy, childbirth, nursing and caring for small children I found I was profoundly changed by the experience and many women I knew also were. I feel like many of us (men and women and otherwise) are ashamed to have “feminine” traits, like women can be equals as long as… well you know… we don’t have any of the traits associated with … (yeck… !) women! Being gentle, emotional, pacifistic, intuitive, empathetic, social, valuing people for their humanity rather than their success, being non-competitive and equality driven, solving problems through working with people and forming networks of support instead of through combat— these traits are shamed and the terms women accepted in being called “equals” was that they would compete for their worth on men’s terms. Women who want to stay at home with their kids don’t fit in the model of “women’s empowerment” at least not the corporate feminism “Lean in” variety rather than the more socialistic forms of feminism that valued nurturers and caregivers. The draft is wrong. It’s just absolutely wrong. Men’s lives aren’t worthless and they shouldn’t be slaves and neither should women. If a draft comes up for a war I don’t believe in, maybe I will join with others to protect all people who don’t believe in or feel suitable for fighting in a war against their will. Even if it turned out that research finds women are not as skilled at fighting (who knows!) I don’t think women should be forced to be as skilled at it in the name of equality, or forced out of the home and into the workforce even if they don’t want that because wanting to stay home is somehow shameful or less. Social justice can fight for people whatever their actual skills are and plenty of men aren’t as good at fighting and are not inferiors either.

8. I agree that the unwilling service is too close to slavery. How we have treated our post -WWII vets is heinous.

   Eric’s statement about “manning the wall” might be more inclusively written “staffing the wall”, given the variety of genders which might be involved.

   I echo Patricia’s fear about draft of all genders would lead to endless war.

   Robert’s statement: “If the country goes crazy again in its lust for war over oil, someone drafted to fight against their will has international political refugee status.”

   It bugs the daylights out of me that we are still pursuing petroleum fuels at this point, when given its declining availability, and its role in climate change, make the continuing default use, and the pursuit of it rather stupid. I think most of us, if not all, are in agreement with this.

   Heather & Tracie: While women may serve in non-combat positions and as support, are they able to get advancements and salary ranges (without combat pay, unless they are in combat areas) as men?

   Victory and Morninghawk Apollo, I am right there with you.

   Philipp, you have a spelling of your name entirely new to me, for which I salute you. Your mention of other things the bill would do makes it a poison pill in my book.

   Amanda, I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly.

   Scott, I suppose you’re implying that women tend to use a map and ask for directions when necessary, instead of wandering blindly into the fray, and are less inclined to wander blindly. I am addicted to maps, and always have been.

   Lee, I think your caveats are spot on.

   Tasha, I agree that equality for women does not mean trying to echo what the patriarchy does to men. That system damages too many people.

   When I was in my junior and senior years in high school, and my single/divorced mother didn’t pay any taxes, because that’s how little she made, one college application ($20 in 1971/2) would be all that she could afford. Can’t recall the sperm donor ever offering to pay for any. I figured either I’d get in to college with good scholarships, or I’d look into joining the Air Force. I think it’s likely that at 97 lbs, I would have been rejected instantly, and I don’t have a clue about what the physical testing would yield.

   As it was, I was told by a WWII vet that women in the service were considered to be sluts, frigid, or lesbian (and let’s get rid of those, because…), no matter their behavior. I also got the “urges” nonsense excuse.

   I just wanted to an astronaut, but Jacqueline Cochrane nixed that for women, in what may have been an “if I can’t get in, I see no reason why any other woman should” move.

   I note that way too often, “allowing women equality”, backfires on us, and I believe it’s deliberate.

9. This is a very difficult topic for me. I come from a warrior tradition on my father’s side — long backstory can be covered by reading up on the chetnik tradition — and I was subject to the next to one of the last draft lotteries knowing that no one would be actually conscripted (1974) and I would likely be rejected for physical reasons anyway. I was also had personal relationships with several Vietnam vets, and one need go no further back than that to get a litany of horror stories on many levels.

   I also strongly recommend, if only as a comparison point, reading Robert A. Heinlein’s essays about the military and what he called a citizen moral code. If you saw the movie “Starship Troopers”, purge it from your thinking. His book clearly outlines his views, and none of them have any connection to the fascism the movie presented.

   The crucial point is why a person enters the military. I take a hard line against conscription based squarely on a culture of consent. Since military service, regardless of the status of our nation, is a matter of life and death, I also elevate that consent to a primary definition of patriotism: the willingness to risk their lives for the abstract construct of the nation. How many of our veterans have been and are treated is criminal. I offer no leeway on that assertion.

   Point of practicality: while I join others in requiring a level field when it comes to privilege, the sorry reality is that people of privilege will find a way to avoid service no matter at what level it is placed, voluntary or mandatory. There is no way to enforce conscription short of martial law or a police state. That is not a trade-off anyone should be willing to make.

   Throughout our history, immigrants have established the standard for patriotism, many of them volunteering for military service even before their citizenship was confirmed. My father was one such, and he was rejected for his age. I, on the other hand, grew up in the middle of the Vietnam war and all the politics and protests, and had I been drafted knowing I would be deployed there, I’d have been faced with the very real possibility of abandoning my citizenship. I doubt that my 18-year-old self would have known how to make that decision. The moral implications of that conflict were fresh and urgent then… and the lessons we could have learned from it have been largely wasted since.

10. My husband and I were new parents at the higher end of that age; what would happen to our children if we were both sent off to war? I didn’t even to jury duty when I was at home with my young children. When I was 18, I was a skinny weakling with not great math or science abilities. Would I have been taken anyway, or need to pass certain competency tests first? Can’t think where I would have been useful; maybe pushing papers, assisting nurses, or working in a kitchen.

    But really, don’t tell me, when women are still undervalued in job fields, positions of power and assumptions of social roles and mores that the way we most readily display equality between the sexes in our society is by drafting everyone equally. Not having it. Especially when the US government cannot guarantee that women in combat won’t be harmed more by their fellow soldiers than they might be by the enemy, as the armed forces are rife with rape culture that men don’t suffer from. If men never feel threatened the same way women do, the situation isn’t ever going to be equal, and in fact never was. Acting like this is incidental and unimportant is the height of inequality, and a draft for women won’t change it, or display actual equality. Addressing women’s concerns by honoring women’s voices is what will bring equality, not governmental forces deciding where to put women. Suggesting a draft for both women and men is an example of equality is to entirely miss what equality actually is and means, and invoke a mere shadow of the concept.

    Socially and institutionally treating women and men in identical ways *in a patriarchal society which is steeped in patriarchal values* is *not* what ‘equality’ means, nor can it ever produce actual equality.

11. the draft should be regardless of race or sex or financial class, meaning if you are rich but eligible, you must serve. however it should also offer an option between military service and social service for conscientious objectors. this works well in several european countries. either selection should offer the same benefits and opportunities such as schooling housing and health benefits. but seriously until certain things are fixed, like the VA and military pensions, any conscription of citizens to a war that has not been democratically voted on by all US citizens is a crock. no more Gulf War fiascos.