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
But some candidates are more dislikeable than others. Do you like Rubio so much that you are willing to dispense with due process for men on college campuses?
That’s reaching, and this isn’t about a specific candidate. This discussion is about a particular issue. If you want to have a Go Ted Go! discussion please create a post for it.
Actually, the entire introductory post was to clarify a “specific candidate”‘s views. Asking whether or not one mistrusts the candidate in question is perfectly within bounds.
Sure. But it is reaching to suggest that because I agree with the candidate on a certain issue means I support every piece of legislation he’s ever put his name on. That is a horrible tactic for discussing an issue. Just because I think Rubio had a valid point about women and Selective Service does not in any way lead to a conclusion that I support rape or the way campuses handle accusations of rape. As to the bill he sponsored, have you read it?
Sign them up.
Draft them in.
Enforce racial and gender quotas like any other position in the military.
Womyn are demanding this honor. Let them have it.
In the end a womyn’s body is only slightly less effective at stopping a bullet than a man’s.
What she did was no more tangential that accusing her of trying to start a “Go Ted Go! discussion” in response to a question that didn’t even mention him.
Regarding your final question, no, I haven’t read the bill (and I doubt Rubio has, either). However, I find that Rubio’s spokesman referring to “victims” who may well not be victims, and many of his other answers regarding it, demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding of the issue and the potential negative consequences of the legislation Rubio co-sponsors.
In fact, he dodges legitimate questions in much the same way he handled criticisms of the Gang of 8, treating due process rights for the accused with the same blithe “of course” he used to defend border protections.
Actually, the spox did a reasonable job with it. No, the bill does not address the side of the accused. This is sorely lacking, and an amendment could repair the problem. What the bill does that I like is compel schools to inform the accuser of the different reporting options, including making a criminal report. A simple bill requiring all reports to be forwarded to the police could have a chilling effect on the reporting of actual sexual assault/rape. That is not an outcome any of us want. Yes, more should be done to rein in the schools on how they handle this and the way the accused is treated, but we have to start somewhere, and that is usually with data to better understand the problem. The bill does some of that. This is the bill, in case you’re so inclined to spend a few minutes reading it.
I have read the bill in it’s entirety and The Campus accountability and Safety Act DOES NOT do any of the things Will and Schow say it does. Neither appears to have read the bill.
James has an entire post on this. If you don’t believe my reading on this bill. Several other members of the site also read the bill and agreed with this conclusion.
http://ricochet.com/the-campus-accountability-and-safety-act-would-mildly-improve-campus-due-process/
I’ll read what Frank and Prawn sent soon, but right now I have some stuff to do. I’ll be back.
This is a mildly disappointing answer by Rubio. He avoids the difficult issue, saying that he would support women in combat if the standards weren’t lowered, but ignoring the research showing that virtually no women can meet the standards.
Meh. I would prefer a strong “Do away with selective service”, but answers that sound egalitarian while not actually being so hit the sweet spot of correct policy that isn’t easily used as an attack on you.
Congressman Rangel NY-D a bronze star winning Korean War vet suggested reinstating the draft years ago. It is not going to fly with this generation. Register the women is fine, just don’t try to get male or female drafted, not going to happen. Rangel hit a brick wall and I believe there would be a nation wide revolt based on how the majority of the country feels about government and it’s policies and how easily we spend the lives of the volunteers now serving. Taking the young lives of this nation to serve the 1% will not happen.
I prefer Cruz’s response, though I also note that Cruz wasn’t put on the spot and had time to calculate.
I think you’ve offered a reasonable position. I’m not quite clear that it’s actually Rubio’s. However… I’m also not quite clear that it’s not. Given the way he framed it, I was expecting Rubio to come out with a “no” until the words that came out of his mouth were actually “I support that.”
The question is whether his phrase about not lowering physical requirements was meaningful or just necessary words. If he meant them, then your explanation makes sense.
If it’s just words, he’s offering a meaningless caveat before staking a position that could theoretically force young girls onto the front lines. I’d rather a person’s instinctive response to that be “no way.” If you’re reading him correctly I can live with that. But he needs to lay it out a little more clearly.
I concur. I think Rubio is better at speaking to reality as it is rather than speaking solely about how the world ought to be. I think it makes him more relatable in some ways. I still think we can give on the first premise, women in combat, provided we make a bedrock rigid line on the second premise maintaining standards.
The question was no doubt a trap. I think he managed to get ensnared in the least damaging way.
Was it the least damaging? I know people who could flip to Cruz on the issue, and I don’t think they’d find this explanation convincing.
I am not sure but I could flip to Cruz on the issue, and I trust Cruz much less than many people here.
If a candidate thinks it’s theoretically OK to draft my young female relatives onto the front lines I am not fine with that. If he wants to say “there’s a case for Selective Service, but women shouldn’t be forced onto the front lines” that’s fine, but he didn’t say that. And that scenario is the sort of thing that should, in my book, get a decisive “no way” even if it’s politically inconvenient.
I’m grateful Rubio says he’s willing to lose an election over life. Even though — like the draft — his position is basically theoretical in the real world. I respect that. I just would like someone with the courage to hold his position on abortion to likewise have the courage to state the basic truth here. Especially since I think the politics on this issue are rather different.
Judithann, do you have links?
I read most of the stuff, and although the CSA isn’t as bad as I thought, it’s still bad, or middlingly-mediocre at best.
In any case, the very reason we have such bills is that so many people believe wildly inflated stats regarding the pervasiveness of sexual assault. There are multiple ways the surveys and reporting requirements could be misused (i.e. saying you’ve been assaulted when you haven’t been so that the university has to crack down on it more, or if the “conviction rate” is low).
And in the meantime, the only tangible protection for the accused we seem willing to offer is that he be informed of the process ahead of time (no right to an advisor, ability to face his accuser, appeal process, etc. that I could find).
And I recognize it isn’t proof, but if a bill on an issue like this is being pushed by Claire McCaskill, I don’t trust it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/republican-candidates-women-combat-roles
In the article linked to above, Rubio says that anyone who can meet the qualifications of a Ranger should be able to become a Ranger. This totally ignores the legitimate concerns many have that the two women who supposedly passed Ranger school in fact did not meet the same qualifications as their male peers. Some Republicans are looking into this; as far as I know, Rubio is not one of them.
Even if Rubio is the most trustworthy man who has ever existed, he will only be President for 8 years at most. What happens when he leaves office? What happens if a liberal gets elected President? To support drafting women is to essentially turn the military over to feminists, and invite them to use our sons and daughters as guinea pigs in their social experiments. Even if a trustworthy conservative starts the experiment, sooner or later liberals will take it over.
So. I’ve said pretty openly that I’ve been undecided between Rubio and Cruz. And I admitted above that this very issue pushes me to some undetermined degree in the direction of the Cruz camp.
And all the polling hints that other people might have thought the same way and dumped Rubio — even in favor of Cruz — are leaving me kind of sick. Calculate that.
I think that speaks mostly to how queasy I am about Cruz.
To clarify :) I know that requiring women to sign up for selective service is not the same as actually drafting them, but it’s a step in that direction that we shouldn’t take; it would be a huge victory for feminists that we should not grant. Those who think that requiring women to sign up for the draft will cause hard core feminists to think twice about feminism don’t understand what hard core feminists are like.
If the military powers that be want to get rid of selective service altogether, they should just say so, and I would support them 100%.
I’m astounded that this issue would push anyone from Rubio to Cruz. Especially since Rubio gave a very politic/general election answer.
(I’m okay with women being subject to the draft if the standards for combat aren’t reduced. I know women who could pick up a 200 lb man in a fireman’s carry – they are rare, but if they want to fight and can pass the men’s standards, let them. Most women are not them, and if drafted, would not be placed in combat according to what Rubio said.)
I really don’t see why compelled service to the nation in a time of emergency is really that negative a thing. I’m not even saying women should fight and die, but merely serve in whatever capacity they are of most benefit to their fellow citizens.
Not saying it will. But basically I’m with National Review on the issue. And I’m still not quite sure why that’s such an essential answer in a general election.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But as long as feminists are in charge, our circumstances will be far from normal. If we were a society that respected the differences between men and women, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with drafting young women to serve the country in a capacity were they could actually be of service. But as long as feminism is a force in our society, feminists will view the military as a way to socially re engineer men and women. We should not be helping them to do that.
This is a very good point.
I think maybe my views are colored some by the women I’ve known in the service.
Thank you, KP :) Out of curiosity, what are the women you know in the service like? My best friend from childhood joined the Marines 20 years ago; she has always been very strong and athletic, and did very well. Her father was in the Marines, and besides that, she is the most patriotic woman I have ever known. I have great admiration for her, but I also worry about women like her, because she is so patriotic and so naive at the same time. I haven’t spoken to her in a long time, but I know that when she signed up, she was very young and she trusted the people in charge. If they had told her that she was qualified to be in combat, she would have believed them, and she would have done her very best to serve her country in any capacity. I have tremendous respect for her, but I have always been astounded by how naive she is. She is now too old to be put in combat, but I worry about other young women like her.
They are patriotic, often young and a little lost at first, but in the end the service takes a hard physical toll on those not in more classically feminine roles. I would never stand in their way of expressing their patriotism and desire to serve.
In all honesty, service effected changes in me I could never have foreseen. Had I not volunteered I would wish I had been conscripted.
I would, if they are trying to serve in positions that they are not qualified for. There are lots of very patriotic young men who would love to be Army Rangers, but are not allowed to because they are not qualified. Why should we treat women differently in that respect?
Depending on which polls you look at, it seems as though most women in the military understand that they are really not qualified to be in combat positions, and they don’t want to be in combat positions. With things as they are now, we may actually be discouraging patriotic young women from enlisting in the military by pushing women in combat.
I don’t know that we’re pushing. The culture of the military really doesn’t support the unqualified in positions for which they are ill suited.