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.
On Drafting Soi-Disant (LOL) Women
OK, ladles and gentlespoons, and (perhaps even) diverse others, such as ye may be:
I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that I’m not the only person on Ricochet who needed to hear on “Tucker,” via Chip Roy, or elsewhere that there’s a provision in the latest House-passed — endorsed by the Armed Services Committee — defense bill that mandates, on the part of “all Americans,” registration for selective service. I actually knew this was coming, because I pay attention to current events. So, no surprise, or even outrage, that this was “slipped past me” (because it was not).
The language in the bill sidesteps the difficult distinction (for some) between men and women by saying simply that the Selective Service System should be “modernized” to amend its applicability from “male citizens,” expanding its reach to just “citizens,” and to replace any offensive male pronouns in the descriptors relating to how the process goes with other words or phrases that might be less triggering to those with delicate sensibilities.
While I do understand that the proposed legislation isn’t quite the same thing as “drafting women,” no matter what any may say, it’s still a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. I mean, really. What if I identify as something else? Like a doorknob? Or a chicken sandwich? In that case, would I still be considered a “citizen” under the proposed legislation? And should I have to register for selective service then, just because doorknobs and chicken sandwiches should be considered as “citizens” and will add diversity to the social experiment that is the modern armed services?
I think not. (Although, in contemplation, I can envision some unintended consequences here, and this cheers me up!)
I don’t know about you, but I’m utterly fed up with the matter. As we all know, studies by any and all branches of the military (particular shoutout to the USMC) have shown that mixed-sex units and companies do less well in direct combat and even in preparedness exercises than do single-sex (male) groupings.
So I can’t, for the life of me, understand why conservatives might find this matter problematic. Or why any conservatives should pretend to being on the fringe, or to being reviled by their fellows, merely because they stand firmly against it. I think we’re pretty much all on the same page here, whether our reason for being there is biblical, political, pragmatic, or simply rational.
Am I wrong?
And so I ask you, therefore, why 135 Republican House members voted in favor of such a thing (including the provision that ALL AMERICANS [this includes women, ICYC] register for selective service), and I also ask for the temperature of the site (on the basis that we might be regarded as conservative) with regard to the idea.
Thanks.
Published in General
I’m exempt from the armed services due to disability (Yeay for half blinded-ness!), however…
What are the chances they’d use a draft as a back door to forcing you into compliance? Would they do that? Do we have enough to make a solid, educated guess?
Please explain what you mean by forcing a person into compliance? That women should be forced into combat situations? I’m not seeing how that works with the “all-volunteer military” (for which men–at least–have been required to register for selective service since–I think–such a thing came into existence in 1973.)
I don’t disagree that “back doors” are a potential way through here, or that there shouldn’t be a substantial level of mistrust.
I’m wondering more why–given the supposed hostility of the majority of the American public to such a thing, so many Republicans have signed onto it.
There are requirements we tolerate in the military that we do not tolerate in private life.
If any mandate would come down and be rejected by the private citizen but acceptable for the military, if the government was motivated enough, they could draft and proceed with the mandate in citizens that are no longer private.
I served in the Navy and was on an integrated ship. While I don’t have any direct experience of the all-male ship’s company and whether it’s more cohesive than we were (being a woman by most of the known definitions), I sure hope the all-male crews were less disrupted by the sex issue in general.
I used to say that women should be subject to the draft in order to participate fully in the responsibilities of citizenship. I certainly still think we shouldn’t be given a free ride, but I no longer think we should be filling combatant roles in the military at all. Hopefully that’s because wisdom has accompanied aging.
Eh … I’m certainly no fan of women in combat, as a matter of effectiveness and that we haven’t fought against a country obeying the rules of war since … WWII? WWI? Without guarantees of any prisoners being treated according to the laws of war, putting women in a situation where they can be forced into sexual slavery is wrong.
But there’s also a couple of other factors. One is the incredibly lopsided teeth to tail ratio of the military. When we have nine military noncombatants for every one combatant, we could have perfect gender equality in the military without having a single female combatant.
Second, I think requiring all citizens to be possibly drafted is the correct move civilly. Rights always come with responsibilities, and having responsibility for the country’s defense is a fair trade for being given the right to vote and shape the country’s direction. I’ll admit to being shaped here by Heinlein’s reasoning in Starship Troopers. Being a citizen, not just a legal resident, isn’t just a matter of title.
This is the naturalization oath (I realize you know it, having taken it, but for others):
If this is what we require of all naturalized citizens, male or female, we can dang well require it of our native citizens.
It usually does. And in light of the following comment, I think there’s a place for all men and women in the military:
Completely agree. That might, however, require a degree if sense and rationality that I’m not sure we can expect, given those in charge at the moment.
Agreed again in terms of all citizens required to register for “national service,.” It’s just a matter, IMHO, of what that might mean,
Women in combat–no.
Women spending some time in government service–yes. (Not necessarily military)
And fear not, dear She. I can’t ever imagine mistaking you for a chicken sandwich. Or a doorknob. Even if you identify as either.
No worries there.
The Israelis have proven that conscription of women into their forces works. The problem that we have in the US is the continual degradation of the requirements needed to pass, and qualify for the services. That is a wholly different problem and is complicated by the addition of CRT and gender identity now becoming de rigueur in Milley and Austin’s command.
I’m old enough, my thoughts were fashioned when sense was a lot more common in Washington.
Ah, I see where the problem is. Mixing rationality and politics just is not done. Remember, politics is about the polis, the mob, and mobs blow with random winds in unpredictable directions.
No they haven’t. The Israelis have a defense force that fights in Israel against invaders/terrorists. Women in the IDF are still barred from units that would be sent across international borders in the event of hostilities.
The United States operates an expeditionary force that fights thousands of miles away from home for extended periods of time. While I love and admire the IDF as I do our own soldiers, there is no comparison to their roles.
We could of course stop using our military as an expeditionary force.
But, but, but, all of that history and tradition! Lincoln and Wilson! What would we do without them?
In the days of terrorism, ascendant Muslim power structures, internet-based viral attacks, and nuclear weapons, I’m not sure that we can stop using our military overseas. An aggressive force can attack us, and do enormous damage, without ever getting within 2,000 miles of our shores. If we want to do something about that, we’ll have to go get them. Wherever they are.
Which, of course, is good and bad…
I don’t anticipate a return to an actual draft. (But what do I know, anyway?) But I’m opposed to women in combat roles, full stop.
In the days of feckless president after feckless president, I’m not sure we can accomplish anything by going over there except offer our troops and citizens as targets. We need spies to tell us where to bomb and drone operators to deliver the bombs on order to dispatch threats. Pouring out blood and treasure to nation-build barbarians into civilized people may be possible in theory, but at this time we clearly are not capable of doing it.
I see a difference also in the fact that Israel is defending a homeland that is under constant threat of attack. And, although I’m unsure of the specifics, I know there are regulations regarding women in offensive combat in the international theater.
I’m against it, but I’m opposed to just about every system of registration.
Leave Lincoln out of it, secesh.
If women want total and absolute Equity then they should both be in Selective Service and should serve in combat poisitons at 50%/50%, maybe higher, since there more women than men. That is what Equity means.
Why stop at the military? If OSHA can enforce a jab, it has the powers to enforce life and death. I also think we need to pass laws around deaths in the workplace. For every man who dies at work, a woman should be dying.
And, in any profession where men outnumber women, that has to stop. So those guys picking up my garbage? They need to have more women doing those jobs. Women don’t want them? Tough. Pass laws forcing companies to have balanced sex ratios. We won’t have equity until women die at the same rate, and have the same low status jobs at the same rate as men.
Of course,
I also think that we should not deploy troops on the ground unless we are at risk of something horrible. Just bomb them from the air and leave it at that.
OR
We should be full throated imperialist, and extract 1000 dead for every service person killed. If a woman is raped (or a man for that matter) the number is 10000.
Any actual conscription (short of a truly apocalyptic situation) is likely to result in some very…nontraditional…deployments of the draftees. Building shelters for the homeless, for example, or serving as ‘climate activists.’
Expect those with college degrees and good connections to be deployed into the more pleasant and less-physical roles. Also, expect corporations that support the right candidates to get a good allocation of free labor in terms of draftees assigned to support them under some ‘woke’ pretext.
When I’m home by myself, alone, I sometimes wear nothing but two slices of wonder bread. How will that be worked into an acceptable military uniform I wonder?
More male meter maids. Dress is optional.
Well, obviously, you’d need a hat. Maybe a nice kaiser roll would do.
I have a reliable source that is guaranteeing the next hot spot requiring US ground troops will be Afghanistan.
I’m not. Combat roles in direct contact with the enemy, yes. Fighter pilots and the like, no.
Kaiser roll? No thanks. I’m not into invading France. Panettoni, will be okay.
My daughter will be encouraged to not register to vote.
The relevant portion of the bill is contained in Section 513 of H.R.4350, titled “Modernization of the Selective Service System,” and reads as follows:
(d) Expanded Registration to All Americans.-- (1) Section 3(a) (50 U.S.C. 3802(a)) is amended-- (A) by striking ``male citizen'' and inserting ``citizen''; (B) by striking ``male person'' and inserting ``person''; (C) by striking ``present himself'' and inserting ``appear''; and (D) by striking ``so long as he'' and inserting ``so long as such alien''. (2) Section 4(e) (50 U.S.C. 3803(e)) is amended by striking ``enlisted men'' and inserting ``enlisted persons''. (3) Section 5 (50 U.S.C. 3805) is amended-- (A) in subsection (a)(1)-- (i) by striking ``race or color'' and inserting ``race, color, sex, or gender''; and (ii) by striking ``call for men'' and inserting ``call for persons''; and (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``men'' each place it appears and inserting ``persons''.Doesn’t it sound lovely?
Note that there isn’t a word in there anywhere about women being required to register for selective service. What they’ve done, and what I expect will become the default going forward in such governmental flimflam, is removed any sex-based distinction as to who is covered by, exempt from, or bound to, the obligations set forth.
See, it’s really not about requiring women to register for the draft so they can be called up at will, into combat or non-combat positions. It’s about equity for “All Americans.” And if you’re not in favor of equity for “All Americans,” then you must be a hateful bigot. And I expect that’s how you’ll be portrayed.