Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Welcome to Adulthood; Please Visit the Post Office
Credit: US Army Flickr
During the debate last weekend, the candidates (starting with Rubio) were asked their stance on women being required to sign up for Selective Service. Rubio answered yes, and people lost their minds. Apparently, listening to the whole statement and following the thought from one complete sentence to the next is too much for some. Here’s the transcript of the exchange:
Raddatz: I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.
Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?
Rubio: First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.
What he said was this: a) Women already serve in arduous roles in the military in which their lives are just as much in danger as the men they serve along side; b) Women in combat are not an issue to him provided standards are not lowered to accommodate them; and c) Because the other two statements are true, registering for Selective Service is the next logical step for women concerning our armed services.
As to the first statement, yes, women are already serving in near-combat roles, placing themselves in harm’s way, and do serve and sacrifice themselves in many of the same ways as the young men of our nation. We can argue whether or not this should be the case, but it is the current reality. I work alongside some of these young women, and they serve just as honorably as their male counterparts. In fact, some of them pour extra effort into their service in order to be seen as equal. There are, however, times where they simply are not biologically equal to men. When they have to pull the poles at some of the vehicle gates to allow passage of oversized vehicles some (not all, but certainly a number of them) are not physically strong enough or even tall enough to drag the heavy iron posts out of the holes in the ground. There is also the problem that their sex cannot be hidden. Even wearing full tactical gear I can tell which ones are women from a considerable distance. The enemy could as well.
The second point is really a conundrum for our military. Military service must be towards the end of combat effectiveness, and that requires a heightened level of physical capability. As the Army learned when all eight women who first tried to become Rangers failed, there are few women who will make the grade. The Marines have determined that simply mixing the sexes in combat units has negative effects. We cannot degrade the readiness or effectiveness of our military in the name of inclusivity or “equality.” The standards must remain the same or we will suffer the consequences. This is the point Sen. Rubio was trying to make.
Those who have served already know what I’m about to say. The physical standards for men and women serving in the military have never been the same. Men and women in all branches have separate physical readiness standards. Less is required of women, but this simply acknowledges the physiological differences between the sexes. If we are to have true equality in the ranks then perhaps it’s time to address this glaring disparity. It won’t happen, however, because if the branches required of women the same body fat standards, cardiovascular standards, and strength standards they require of men, the vast majority of women would fail.
The last point Rubio made only makes sense when considering the previous two. Women already serve valid functions in our military. Though combat roles have been opened to those who can meet the combat standards, very few will. But the inability of women to swell the combat ranks should not exempt the female citizenry from meeting the same requirement of conscripted service in times of war that is currently the sole burden of men. There is a lot more to operating a military than sending lead down range, and compelling women to fill the roles for which they qualify would free-up more men who are fit for combat to fight on the front lines rather than providing support to those who are fighting.
I agree with Senator Rubio, and I say that as the father of two beautiful daughters. The Left has clamored for forced equality, and in this I think it makes some sense. He was not asked if women should be conscripted for combat. The question asked was, “Should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?” I give the same qualified “yes” as Marco, and for the same reasons.
Welcome to adulthood, ladies. Please visit the post office to register.
Published in Military
Either everybody registers or else nobody registers.
I would be totally fine with nobody registering Beyond that, I will be supporting Cruz, who has given all the right answers on women in combat.
Indeed. If we’re to have it, and if we’re to force equality, then let’s have it in full. That’s the point of the bill introduced to force this.
The question wasn’t about women in combat.
I want this question posed to Hillary Clinton in a debate.
You get what you paid for. Or unexpected consequences. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You want equal, you’ve got equal. Sign ’em up.
Agreed. Aside from the benefit of outing the left’s hypocrisy on the matter, I do see some upside to forcing the issue. Either we’ll get a more ready force because more men will be freed up to do the grunt work, or the nation will be forced to acknowledge how very bad an idea it is to send our daughters to war. Of course, there does exist the possibility that we’ll get all the downside and none of the upside. The left can be tricksy and times.
The correct answer would have been to propose eliminating Selective Service, as another government program that does nothing and never will again, since no politician will conceivably support coerced conscription in the future.
The battlefield of the present and the future requires motivated and skilled soldiers, not grunts.
Not wholly. We still need folks to storm positions, engage the enemy at times closely, and kill them mercilessly. No technology will ever eliminate that need.
D.C. McAllister would disagree with me, but I think she is conflating military service with combat. They ain’t the same thing. She also makes a point about the women staying home to tend the homeland, raise the babies, etc. She forgets that this isn’t the ’50s, people don’t really start having homes and families until they are often past drafting age anyway.
I have mixed feelings about this. An unspoken assumption in any representative system of government is whoever votes signals a willingness to uphold the results of the vote by force of arms, if necessary. This is the moral underpinning of the draft – you vote, you fight. An electorate unwilling or unable to fight yields a result about as meaningful as a flock of sheep voting to outlaw wolves.
Women have the right to vote, therefore they have the same responsibilities as all who have the franchise. That includes defending the nation. On that score, they should be liable to draft registration, and should it occur – a draft.
Yet – despite the various fantasies spawned by the media – women are different than men. They have less raw physical strength. (I am not talking about the exceptions, but the averages). They are less capable in most combat roles, especially infantryman. (Their reaction time might make them better pilots, but generally there are a lot more infantrymen than pilots.)
Plus, women are less dispensable to a society than men. There is a reason for the historic attitude of “women and children first.” Sacrifice a tenth of its male youth, and a country can come back. Sacrifice an equal amount of its female youth and a country is on a path to extinction. (One reason I do not much worry about China – demographics will take care of it.)
Seawriter
Does it not also need warm bodies to keep bases back home operating normally while combat troops are deployed overseas?
Thanks for this KP, I was thinking the same thing, that people missed the really important part of the statement; not compromising minimum standards. Reagan told Gorbachev “No thanks” because consigning SDI to the lab was a non-obvious way of killing SDI. Maintaining proper minimum standards will address a lot of the concerns expressed on these pages without causing the allergic PC response of the chattering MSM classes.
Perhaps the solution is to allow people to opt out of the draft by not registering to vote. If you do not register to vote – male or female – you do not have to register with the draft. Of course, once you do register to vote for the first time, you also have to register for the draft, and once registered, remain there.
Seawriter
Drafting age (in WWII) was initially 21 to 36, and later 18 to 45. After WWII the draft was largely limited to 18-21 because manpower requirements were low. (In reality we did not need a draft.)
Seawriter
Which is my point. We can eliminate the entire Selective Service.
In the disaster circumstance where we might have to reinstate conscription, we could easily draft people using any other set of voter, social security, gmail or Facebook data.
I think Rubio (and others) missed an opportunity. His response should have been: “This is not the question to ask — selective service registration of men is not discrimination against women. Not allowing women to volunteer for military service or perform roles for which they are as capable as men would be discrimination. I do not support discrimination, but I think that it is important that our military be structured in ways that ensure effectiveness and make combat more, not less, survivable. This means we need to have fact-based criteria for gender integration, not political theories. As President, I will ensure our force does not discriminate, but is most effective, not just a poster-child for ‘inclusiveness’.”
Like.
Being “discriminating” is sometimes a good thing!
Sorry, TKP, but robots will.
Yeah, I have noticed that the right can be even more tricksy than the left. For years, conservatives have been telling me that they oppose women in combat, now some of them turn on a dime and state that they want to draft women, and I am supposed to just accept that, because fairness? At least liberals are who they say they are.
And this issue is most definitely about women in combat. When the two women supposedly passed Army Ranger school, a few Republicans rightly asked for more information to ensure that standards were not lowered for those women; as far as I know, Marco Rubio was not one of those Republicans, but I do remember him applauding those two women and talking about how great the whole thing was. He cannot be trusted to ensure that standards are not lowered.
There is another thing, I am wondering, though: what, politically, do conservatives have to gain by throwing women like Phyllis Schlalfly under the bus and embracing a female draft? Does Rubio believe that liberal women will ignore all of his other positions and vote for him because he wants to draft teenaged girls? He has obviously decided that he doesn’t need me or women like me to vote for him, and liberal women aren’t going to vote for him either. And if he doesn’t get enough women to vote for him, he will lose. Does he realize this? Or does he believe that he can make up for all the lost female votes with the votes of men who will support him because fairness?
Rubio would probably say that he is just standing on principle and he won’t mind if loses over it. I hope for his sake that he means that, because I don’t see any political advantage to what he is doing.
To me, there are three options.
1 No women in combat.
2. Women in combat if (and only if) they genuinely meet the same standards as men.
3. Draft both women and men.
The first is my preferred option, but that would be “discrimination.”
The second is a pipe dream. Any standards that substantially fewer women reach will be derided as “discrimination,” not unlike every other standard one group or another fails to excel at (i.e. SAT scores). The upper echelons of the Pentagon (after so many of the decent officers have been purged) are far more dedicated to “diversity” and “equality” than combat readiness, meaning that once women are theoretically allowed into the Navy SEALs, actual women MUST be in the Navy SEALs. Otherwise “Patriarchy!” Misogyny!” “Sexism!” blah, blah, blah
So, we’re stuck with option 3. Unfortunately, we’re so immersed in Leftist nonsense that I don’t think anything short of Average Joe’s precious daughter being yanked onto the front lines is going to wake us up enough to do anything about it.
As for this “equality” when it means fun and prestige yet “chivalry” when it comes to difficulty or obligation, to hell with it.
Martel: we have a clear choice in this primary. Marco Rubio will continue the damage done to the military by feminists. Ted Cruz will try to stop it. This is a no brainer :)
In addition to this, there’s even more reason to suspect Rubio has much of a clue on “gender issues.”
Regarding men who’ve been accused of rape on campus:
The more you know about Rubio, the more there is to dislike :)
I was active in the Florida Tea Party when he was the mouthpiece for the Gang of 8. You’ve no idea how betrayed we felt.
FIFY.
I see that we’re either stuck with the left figuring out how to implement this or the right making those decisions, but the reality is that we have to confront the issue. Pretending like women won’t go into combat (ready for it or not) is no solution. Only one (viable) candidate laid out the conditions under which such a thing would be acceptable.