Male only draft registration declared ''unconstitutional''

#1
This is an interesting development. Do you believe that the draft registration in the US should no longer exist, or do you feel that women should now be mandated to sign up as men do, at the age of 18? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...968872002/
Reply
#2
Rights generally come with duties. Just like many women didn't want suffrage because they thought the duty to be an informed voter would hinder their duties of motherhood and domestic affairs, demanding equal treatment and access to things, like serving in the military, will probably end the same way. Instead of extending duties to women, like service in bucket brigades, we'll likely remove them from men. The more we try to treat women like men the more we have to lower the bar...often for men too. It's a sad state of affairs that comes from simply refusing to accept objective gender differences.

Should we? Considering the modern squeamishness to guns, we might need a draft if the US is ever attacked or under immanent threat. And if the threat were that dire, including women would double the fighting force. But no, I don't want to see women get maimed or die in war. Like it or not, they are the weaker sex, and any healthy man feels an evolutionary imperative to protect them.

I would prefer only men be drafted and women take more interest in children. That way if men ever need to be drafted, we have a healthy birthrate to compensate.
Reply
#3
(Feb 25, 2019 03:42 AM)Leigha Wrote: ... Do you believe that the draft registration in the US should no longer exist, or do you feel that women should now be mandated to sign up as men do, at the age of 18?


Considering a horde of other rival areas money is probably still wasted on, the price of maintaining registration seems a drop in the bucket. Even if perhaps today the process largely serves a mere symbolic function of "demonstrating America's feeling of resolve to potential enemies". (Those superficial appearances thus kind of making it irrelevant if women are required to register, whatever the individual feelings and opinions.)

Doing away with the Selective Service System completely would eliminate a cost of circa $25 million a year. Placing it instead in "deep standby mode" would reduce the expense to circa $18 million or only $7 million a year in savings. The SSS itself has contended (no neutral party to conduct the studies?) that the latter option would lengthen the time to perform an actual draft and provide inductees to two and one third years -- and yet another 3 months added to that if the SSS is totally deactivated. Compared to supplying recruits in 193 days if the SSS was maintained as is.

"Deep standby mode" would supposedly mean only maintaining a basic registration database. Other government-maintained databases could be used as alternatives if the SSS was terminated, but it is argued that those databases "might not result in a fair and equitable draft" (potential disparities in the population in terms of higher draft risk for some groups).

If still applicable in the Trump era, the military itself does not desire a draft except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Regarding a pool of "coerced to serve" draftees with "only minimal training and a desire to leave the service as soon as possible" as inferior in quality to volunteer forces.

James R. Helmly: "I came in the Army when there was a draft induced Army. We had some awfully great soldiers during that time, we've had great soldiers throughout our history, but, today's all-volunteer Army is a higher quality force. Our President [Dubya back then] has said we will not have a draft and I agree with him."

Thus again registration's mitigation to little more than a symbolic purpose (barring an end of the world scenario emerging over the horizon).

###
Reply
#4
If women were included, they could just use voter registration in lieu of signing up with the SSS, as the right to vote should come with some responsibility/duty anyway. Might put a different spin of Democrats getting poor/minorities to register too, as the poor don't really pay taxes but still vote for higher taxes and more income redistribution. At least the specter of a draft would be a hypothetical contribution to society.
Reply
#5
Thanks, Syne and CC. I'll come back to your points, later, but I don't think we ''need'' a mandatory draft registration. But, if that stays in place, I'd assume it's only fair in the interest of equality, to ''force'' 18 year old women to sign up. I can't honestly say I've ever noticed any outspoken feminists being up in arms (no pun) that women aren't currently mandated to sign up, as men are. lol
Reply
#6
(Feb 25, 2019 06:05 PM)Leigha Wrote: . . . I can't honestly say I've ever noticed any outspoken feminists being up in arms (no pun) that women aren't currently mandated to sign up, as men are. lol


Back in 2016, a coalition of feminist groups did at least declare the expansion of draft registration to women a step toward equality. Historically, though, women leagues tend to go the route of "war not being a natural condition of the human family" and side with the arguments and rhetoric of male protesters and pacifists against military conscription.

A third optional outcome of this ruling is that Trump could simply reverse the 2013 policy decision which opened up direct combat roles for women, which set-up this predicament to begin with. A possibility which made the rounds early in his presidency, but which Trump wasn't committed on either way at the time, deferring judgement to the military.

One "predisposedly biased for inferring that" claim from a resistance organization is that "draft registration of men has been a fiasco for the government since its resumption in 1980. But the government has never been able to find a face-saving way to end registration and shut down the Selective Service System without admitting that its scare tactics failed, or dealing with the implications of young people's insistence on making their own choices about which wars they are willing to fight. The likelihood and imminence of a court ruling that males-only draft registration is now unconstitutional provides the perfect opportunity for Congress to end draft registration entirely".

###
Reply
#7
(Feb 25, 2019 08:34 PM)C C Wrote:
(Feb 25, 2019 06:05 PM)Leigha Wrote: . . . I can't honestly say I've ever noticed any outspoken feminists being up in arms (no pun) that women aren't currently mandated to sign up, as men are. lol


Back in 2016, a coalition of feminist groups did at least declare the expansion of draft registration to women a step toward equality. Historically, though, women leagues tend to go the route of "war not being a natural condition of the human family" and side with the arguments and rhetoric of male protesters and pacifists against military conscription.

A third optional outcome of this ruling is that Trump could simply reverse the 2013 policy decision which opened up direct combat roles for women, which set-up this predicament to begin with. A possibility which made the rounds early in his presidency, but which Trump wasn't committed on either way at the time, deferring judgement to the military.

One "predisposedly biased for inferring that" claim from a resistance organization is that "draft registration of  men has been a fiasco for the government since its resumption in 1980. But the government has never been able to find a face-saving way to end registration and shut down the Selective Service System without admitting that its scare tactics failed, or dealing with the implications of young people's insistence on making their own choices about which wars they are willing to fight. The likelihood and imminence of a court ruling that males-only draft registration is now unconstitutional provides the perfect opportunity for Congress to end draft registration entirely".

###

That info in your first paragraph is interesting, I didn't know this. I agree with most though, that war isn't a natural condition of the human family. It's unfortunately necessary to protect ourselves though, from incoming threats. The military could be seen as a country's self-defense, but we have engaged in unnecessary wars over the centuries. 

To your point about Trump. I'd say that it's fine for women to be in direct combat roles, if they realize what they're getting into. I've read mixed opinions from men in the military on this, stating that biologically speaking, men often put themselves in harm's way ''for'' women. On behalf of women. To have a women fighting side by side, some in the military feel that men will be too distracted, because their ''nature'' tells them to fight on behalf of women, not side by side them. I don't know about that. We tend to see things from a western point of view. Back in the Paleolithic era for example, men and women were treated relatively equally, archaeologists have supported. The idea that women are damsels in need of rescuing is somewhat of a westernized philosophy. Or seems to be.
Reply
#8
It is a fact (almost) universally acknowledged that men behave foolishly when women are around.
Reply
#9
[epiphany]It's the ones whose feet don't quite touch the ground - they're the ones to beware of. [/epiphany]
Edit - I was expecting some kind of bold gold letters with flames licking the edges. Hard won wisdom that. Know when to run.
Edit2 - and which way to run.
Reply
#10
Bit of a story. On the day in question (a few days ago) it was foggy in my corner of Blighty so, on my way to work I turned the car lights on. The car does (apparently) give a warning when you leave the car with the lights on but I can't hear it as a result of events last year. So when I want to go home the lights have been on all day and the battery is flat and the car won't start. I called the Automobile Association or A.A. and asked for them to come and start the car for me. Being in no immediate danger (or so I thought) I would be a low priority case and it could be hours before any help arrived. There is a gentle slope in the car park sufficient to bump start the car so I cast about for any potential volunteers to give me a push - the car park is deserted. I'm sure there is a Youtube of someone pushing their car down a slope and being unable to get back in - I didn't want to be that guy. I'll get to the point shortly but it would make no sense without setting the scene.

So I've lifted the bonnet so (hopefully) the A.A. will see the motorist in distress and started to wander about in the fog (still foggy) waiting to be rescued.
"Would you like any help?" - a female voice. A very female voice.
"My car is broken down." I say - to let her know I'm not a mental patient that has got lost in the fog.
"I can see that." She said with an edge of sarcasm in her tone- kind'a used to the foolishness?
"Flat battery." I said to clarify the nature of the broken downess. Meanwhile I am peering through the fog trying to work out what kind of female is offering to help a strange (I think I can safely say that) male in an isolated place in thick fog.
While peering I thanked her for her concern and made clear that the A.A. had been called and lied that they would be along shortly.
The peering through the fog at a silhouette revealed broad hips, athletic build and her feet didn't seem to be touching the ground.
"I'm no mechanic but I can push." she says - by this time I'm starting to panic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)