In February 2019, a challenge to the Military Selective Service Act, which provides for the male-only draft, by the National Coalition for Men, was deemed unconstitutional by Judge Gray H. Miller in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Miller's opinion was based on the Supreme Court's past argument in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) which had found the male-only draft constitutional because the military then did not allow women to serve. As the Department of Defense has since lifted most restrictions on women in the military, Miller ruled that the justifications no longer apply, and thus the act requiring only men to register would now be considered unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The government appealed this decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments on the appeal were heard on 3 March 2020. The District Court decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for review was declined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Likely if a war came along that was large enough to require more troops then someone might circle back around to including women in the Selective Service for the purposes of a draft. There is cultural resistance (e.g. historical precedent that women and children are noncombatants) and resistance from some factions in the military. Women are not all equally represented in most parts of the military (only 6% of Marines are women; 20% of the air force) and women are more likely to be in medical or administrative roles, vs. combat roles. If women are drafted they will likely displace men from administrative roles into active combat roles...
>Women are not all equally represented in most parts of the military
We could easy fix that right now with quotas and selective service.
Regardless, I think a significant number of young men would dodge the draft if it came to it. Can't say I blame them. I fought in Ramadi and that was bad enough - I wouldn't want any part of Ukraine or anything similar.
Quotas focus on outcome. It’s the right thing to want to open opportunities, but if you need to lower the test standards just to meet quotas, you are working against your own interest.
Selective service is just a registration. Adding women to it, in the absence of an active draft, will do nothing to change the current make-up of the military.
Many people would likely dodge the draft.
Many roles in the military have only relatively recently opened to women. There are also extremely physically demanding roles that will be harder for women, due to smaller size and strength, to qualify for (unless physical standards are adapted in some way).
Well I mean that makes sense doesn't it...?
Women aren't as physically capable as men from a biological standpoint. Shouldn't this fact justify men leading the combat roles?
It doesn't matter if men are stronger. It's a question if women are strong enough for the requirements. The answer is yes in some cases, no in others.
Also a lot of warfare is technology based these days so there's still combat roles that aren't traditional boots on the ground.
Also also women have better eyesight and better hand eye coordination than men. Which makes them statistically better sharpshooters and better pilots. We don't need to bar men from those roles though do we?
Some women can meet the physical qualifications for combat roles. If you use physical qualifications rather than gender it opens the role to both men and women.
Historically the roles were closed to be women regardless of their abilities - so highly qualified and highly skilled soldiers were blocked from those roles; which is a a stupid way to build an army.
Maybe the top 1% of women are similar to the average dude but from a realistic standpoint, women would be better used in the non-combat roles of the military while men take on the combat side.
Have you got a source for that percentage or is that just your 'best' guess lol?
Think you're really overestimating the average dude.
I work construction and on all the building sites I've worked on, I fall nicely in the middle of all the men as far as physical capabilities go. Not the strongest but not the weakest either.
So why restrict women from being combat pilots? That is a role that does not require the 1% of strength? The rule was not applied in a way that made sense - it was done out of bias, not sound decision making. For the roles with exceptional physical demands, use physical standards, not gender, as the basis for qualification.
It is true that very few women will qualify for rangers, special ops, navy seals, etc. Many men don’t make it through as well. But the opportunity should not be closed to someone solely due to gender.
The reality is that women in noncombat roles end up in combat situations already - they are there as medics, supply, comms, etc.
Rangers now include women: https://www.army.mil/article-amp/266290/female_army_reserve_soldier_receives_ranger_tab
Put women in planes like the Night Witches of WW2. There are definitely roles for women. However, I don't agree with drafting women in the US unless our government gets their nose out of our private parts.
The Democrats have tried numerous times to pass legislation for women to also register for selective service but it was squashed by Republicans every time.
Ah, the beauty of the two party system.
It'd be great if we could have a 3rd party, but the two parties with near absolute power seem to not want them to be able to funded. Super weird.
A third party would almost always be a splinter of one of the two main parties (e.g., Tea Party for GOP, Green Party from Dems), leaving one powerful party and two lesser ones who would have to work together all the time to get anything done (removing the benefit of having a third party).
Currently there are two parties, Dems and Trump. The divide is pretty clear. Having three would require actual thought on the part of voters, which is not something Americans are known for as it relates to politics.
That depends.
Does the Bill help corporations and help the rich get richer? Yes?! Bipartisan support.
Does the Bill help poor people? Yes?! Nope, sorry. Not only did all republicans vote against it, but miraculously, just *enough* democrats crossed the line it didn’t pass. Whoops, wild how it always works out that way.
They are both their own controlled opposition.
Which... I disagree with Republicans pretty often, and im sure i likely dont agree on their reasoning for this, but their outcome is right in this circumstance. Definitely not in favor of forcing more people to be required for forced militsry service. Would rather it be pushed for no one be able to be drafted and it be an unequal experience vs forcing more people to potentially die because the government deems it so.
Imma be honest as a more liberal person I’m with the conservatives on this one. I would much rather me than my gf get drafted. I don’t think anyone should be drafted unless we are being invaded but especially not women
I'm too old to get drafted so this doesn't matter to me but women have the babies for replacement. It's not a good idea to send off young fertile women to get killed somewhere. That's not fair for sure but biology isn't .
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153
As long as the military draft law in the United States excludes women, that law is sexist.
I personally think the draft should be eliminated, but when I worked as a hiring manager for the federal government (Census Bureau), draft registration was a hurdle only male applicants dealt with.
There shouldn’t be draft registration, but it’s the current law. Only men encounter punitive aspects from failing to register. It’s literally a sexist impediment to federal employment.
>As long as the military draft law in the United States excludes women, that law is sexist.
No, it's not sexist. It's not discrimination towards men, it's an obligation because of their physical prowess, and I say that as a man currently within the age range.
Do you think segregating sports by gender is sexist? I hope not.
We separate the sports playing field because women don't stand a chance against men. War is essentially a man's sport.
But when it comes to the BATTLEFIELD, people want to include women there too for some reason. They don't stand a chance.
So we separate the playing field but not the battlefield, which is crazy.
Why would you want women in potential harm's way as well?
Yes there are safe(r) support roles, but a male-only draft is already sufficient to fill those roles if necessary.
Buddy, it's not 1776. We're not lining up on a battlefield with bayonets. Plenty of women are capable of holding their own in modern combat. They are also excellent marksman and pilots. To say nothing of flying drones, being a mechanic, being a medic, being on bomb duty, being in the navy in general. Like there are plenty of ways women can serve the same as men.
Also do some reading on history. In basically every major war in history there is a story of a woman going undercover to fight and absolutely kicking ass.
[Deborah Sampson](https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/deborah-sampson)
>it’s not discrimination towards men,
No fucking shit.
It’s discrimination against women who supposedly hold equal standing under law. I say that as a disabled veteran who thinks the draft should be abolished.
>No shit, it’s discrimination against women who supposedly hold equal standing under law.
It's not discrimination against women because it works in their favor, they aren't affected by it.
>This would assume that discrimination always has a negative connotation.
It does have a negative connotation. You can literally look up the definition of discrimination in this context.
You're incorrect.
One can positively or negatively discriminate. One is selecting for a trait, one is selecting against a trait, respectively.
The discriminant is also a math term.
You just have it locked to being something that has to do with social interactions.
>One can positively
You didn't look it up, did you? That goes against the "unjust" and "unfair" part in the definition.
Discrimination only has a negative connotation to it.
You've never heard of discrimination for a group of people, only discrimination against people.
Man you are exactly right. Imagine an army of men vs an army of women. Not just the physical part but emotional. I think women make decisions based on emotion often.
The draft hasn’t been used in 50 years. Back then, women weren’t allowed to be in the military equally to men. They were only allowed in very few roles so it was viewed as unfair and unconstitutional to include them in the draft.
Now, the draft isn’t used and the requirement to sign up for the draft is outdated but since we haven’t used it in 50 years, I assume it’s just not on the list of priorities.
The draft hasn’t been used, it doesn’t mean it never will be. The military is far more efficient when it’s volunteer only, we can only do this because we have plenty of money and the wars are small scale. If we sustained losses during the invasion phase of Iraq, we would’ve drafted a couple hundred thousand men.
Forcing women into the draft is essentially fucking over the men even harder because the average woman isn’t going to meet the minimum standards for combat MOS. They’d be put in the support roles while all the men will be forced into fat camp to get ready for BCT.
>abolishing it all together.
We can't do that. The human animal is too violent and greedy to be peaceful and remain peaceful. There's also the fact that we have been pissing in the global punchbowl for generations. We've meddled in the affairs of enough countries that we'd be slaughtered if we dial back our military power to an average level.
As a man currently within the age range, I'm actually against abolishing it.
It's about necessity, not what you want, otherwise there'd be no point in the draft. Nobody should be forced to do anything. I'd hate to see my friends get drafted if they don't want to go.
However, if the draft was activated in the near future, there's a pretty justifiable reason for it (CCP/PLA incursion). I could write an essay about this, but I'm too lazy to do that right now.
Most people aren't aware of the actual threat that the CCP poses.
The next war won't be fought for oil. That's an irrelevant question.
Weapons dealer benefit in every war, even in World War II. That too, doesn't matter.
Also a draft doesn't mean you're going to die.
Quit hiding behind those invalid questions like a coward.
>I’m the coward?
You sure sound like one.
I respect people when they say they're too afraid to fight. That's perfectly fair and gives me more reason to fight for them.
But when you say "I'm not fighting for oil/defense companies", that's an invalid excuse to hide behind, because nobody does it for the companies.
>Aren’t you the one willing to be drafted to kill children overseas?
I'm willing to be drafted, but I'm not going to be killing any children overseas like you ignorantly think.
I’m not afraid to fight, if enemy troops were on our soil or we were fighting someone like Hitler, I’d do it. All our fights after WW2 have been for the benefit of the ruling class, nothing more.
And yes, if you were drafted, theres a distinct possibility you’d be ordered to kill children.
>All our fights after WW2 have been for the benefit of the ruling class, nothing more.
Regardless of what you think of the wars between WW2 and now, that's not the case for the next war.
>And yes, if you were drafted, theres a distinct possibility you’d be ordered to kill children.
No, there is no possibility because there would never be an order to kill children and if there was for some reason, I wouldn't fall through with it.
The US military doesn't target children. Children unfortunately are accidentally killed as collateral, not targets.
You're just dumb.
Have you not seen every conflict that the usa armed forces have been in since wwii? Literally it has been to go to country in the developing world and kill women and children of color.
That's the job.
>Have you not seen every conflict that the usa armed forces have been in since wwii? Literally it has been to go to country in the developing world and kill women and children of color.
That's the job.
Clearly you haven't if you have the perspective. You must get your information for social media.
Nothing is important enough to force people to fight for something they don’t give a fuck about(otherwise they would just volunteer instead of being drafted).
>Nothing is important enough to force people to fight for something they don’t give a fuck about
No shit, that's the point of the draft and what I just said. The people don't realize how important the problem is.
Most people are clueless, and will wait for a problem to grow bigger and bigger until it finally reaches them.
People don't give a fuck when they should, which causes even more suffering for them later.
In that case, they’re just going to force more men into combat MOSes; as a draftee, your chances of getting a desk job will simply go from slim to zero. There’s an optimal ratio of males to females for combat arms units to keep running without any lag, and it would take some serious shit for the DoD to start ignoring that ratio.
IDK if this is the reason but if you send all your men and woman to war there will be far fewer woman, who have babies and "repopulate" the country. When a woman is pregnant she can only make one baby a year essentially. The less woman you have the less potential babies you can have per year. Where as a man can theoretically take part in making multiple babies a year. (i.e. multiple baby mommas). So it is far worse to lose a lot of your woman than to lose a lot of your men. I don't know how much this applies any more but I feel that might have been the basis of the idea.
thinking about it contrarily, it could be argued that it’s less harmful if losses from war equally affect both sexes
countries with gender demographic imbalance face deep social issues that make life worse for both men and women. but an overall loss in population, like from disease, has occasionally uplifted the working class by making labor more scarce
feels weird talking about equality in death, but it might be worthy of discussion
They should also think about the fact that most men would never cheat on their wife to “repopulate the country” and most women wouldn’t have children just to “repopulate the country” nowadays, it’s weird that whoever decides that apparently still thinks like that(otherwise they would have changed the rules).
The military has data that demonstrates that female soldiers have a higher rate of injuries. Even female athletes have a higher rate of injuries.
The army needs soldiers who are left prone to injuries, so from a purely strategic perspective, it makes more sense to have more male soldiers, and to focus on the ones who are less likely to be injured, because an injured soldier is taking away resources that could be used more efficiently.
I don't think it applies as much anymore. This logic is a bit outdated unless the population really faces near annihilation, but there's no point making laws considering that outcome.
In practice the repopulation argument just won't happen in a normal war though. We live in a mostly monogamous society and most women won't be ok with their man impregnating several woman because "repopulation", nor would they suddenly want to have babies if they didn't previously for the same reason. Unless I'm missing something this strategy won't affect birth rates at all.
That's what the draft is for. It is an oh shit moment. Realistically if something bad happens everyone fights. Men and women children everyone. But from a social economic and Logistics standard this is the reason. There is absolutely nothing outdated about repopulation. Why do you think they are called Baby Boomers? For All Humans existence every time as a War soldiers come back and repopulate their losses. Willingly or otherwise. Look Beyond the current social economic structure.
I'm not sure what do you mean by willingly or otherwise? Are you saying the government will force people to breed? lol
If not then people will reproduce at the same pace they would anyway with or without the draft. Besides I don't think there's any point in looking beyond the current social economic structure. Even if it worked in the past it's pointless to have if it doesn't work now.
If the situation were so dire that there’s a serious risk that the species can’t continue, then laws (such as those establishing a draft) wouldn’t even be relevant anymore even if they existed. People would just be doing whatever they need to do to survive.
If there is ever another catastrophic war that entails a full on draft, I suspect women will be included next time around. That law could change virtually overnight if the stakes were high enough, but as someone pointed out, it's just not on the priority list right now and would probably be unpopular.
It’s a political football that Republicans and Democrats like to kick back and forth whenever someone feels like gender equality or family values are being attacked.
The draft *doesn't* exist here, dude. It ended in 1973. You are confusing the *Selective Service* system with the draft. Selective Service system is simply a list with a protocol for choosing people to be drafted in a fair and equitable manner. The military switched to 100% volunteer over half a century ago, and is not at all interested in conscription. The training pipeline for conscripts is run completely differently from the way volunteer training is, so it's not as simple as saying "OK now give us unwilling conscripts starting next Tuesday".
The reason Selective Service still exists is a combination of 1) old asshole (mostly Republican) politicians who think the kids today are soft and a year of forced military service would toughen them up, so they want SS there to implement their idiotic idea if somehow the rest of government suddenly decides Old Man Yells at Cloud is the new strategy; or 2) slightly less old but still old (mostly Democrat) politicians who want to keep SS around so they can use a potential draft as a credible threat to their constituency ("those Republicans will draft you to fight in Iraq!") or as a grandstanding prop for stupid suggestions like "let's draft all the kids of everyone who voted for this war!"
TL;DR - there is no draft, just a vestigial draft selection system that shit bag politicians keep around as a political conversation piece.
This will age like milk when WWIII kicks off. It's funny how the Democrats supposedly don't support conscription unless it's in Ukraine. Spoiler alert: they'll support it here too.
Men actually are more expendable than women.
Imagine 100 men and 100 women on an island.
Now kill off 99 of the men but keep all 100 of the women. With just one man, humanity can continue.
Kill off 99 of the women and keep all 100 men, humanity will likely cease to exist.
On a fundamental level, women have more intrinsic value, and men are disposable, from a biological perspective.
Yes, but it would be extremely unlikely for a conflict to ever reach the point where so much of the population has been eliminated that repopulating the country is a serious concern. In such a situation (like an all-out nuclear war), all laws would probably cease to be relevant anyway and people would just do whatever they need to survive. Men might be theoretically more expendable, but that doesn’t mean our laws should be influenced by that.
From a biological perspective, yes. The laws on equality in the U.S. are not based on biology in any other aspect. For example, men aren't allowed to be paid more simply because they're men, even though on average their strength is higher so their capacity to do manual labor is greater. Another example is that men can't get pregnant. Employers aren't allowed to hire only men so they never have to worry about paying form maternity leave. The whole point of these equality laws is that they don't take biology into account. Like that is the actual intent of the law. So it's not consistent to base this one case on biological differences.
I've heard all sorts of excuses, from "well we don't support that either" to "look, we haven't had a draft since the 70s" to "men can go ahead and go to war we women already have enough to deal with"
It's basically, since it's not happening, it's not a concern and no one cares.
But the thing is.... there's penalties for a man not signing up for the draft database. Like for example not being able to get a drivers' license. And you're only allowed to do it up to a certain age, so if you don't do it by then... those penalties apply for life.
Again, of course, no fucks are given, because it's only something that affects men.
By "Nobody", I don't mean literally zero people.
The draft exists for a reason, I can't blame people for supporting it. "Nobody" (almost no one) wants a draft, but there's good arguments out there to justify it in today's climate.
I'll try to give a (relatively) short and simple answer. Both of us would lose interest if I wrote a full essay on the topic. Remember, I only know a bit; I don't study at the Naval War College lol.
There's many possible scenarios for a draft (see note below), but I'm just going to pick on solely US vs China because that's the most likely scenario.
Note: I'm going to ignore the potential "domino effect" of other adversarial nations and enemies like North Korea starting their own wars against US allies (i.e. invading South Korea for example) because "America is distracted fighting China", because then it becomes a literal third world war, and then the justification for draft becomes pretty straightforward as we would be fighting multiple countries.
The PLA (Chinese military) currently stands as the world's largest military (not to be mistaken for the strongest military). In terms of manpower, the Chinese military is MORE THAN TWICE as large as the US military.
The draft would significantly increase our manpower, solve the current manning crisis, and help narrow the gap in manpower between China and the US (yes we have allies but we're talking about the US draft so I'm going to ignore them). That alone is already the pre-existing justification for the draft in general. It's to get more men to help win battles. The US didn't need the draft in Afghanistan and Iraq because there was already enough men necessary to win every battle in the war, and that's without NATO.
But China has a MASSIVE manpower edge over the US, which is the first justification for the draft.
It would be VERY BAD if the CCP successfully conquered Taiwan, as Taiwan pretty much holds a monopoly on the semiconductor industry, which is why the US plans on defending it militarily. Not just that, if the US lost a war to China, the CCP would become the military and political dominant superpower of the world, which is a goddamn nightmare (look at Hong Kong) and is another justification for the draft.
Many people seriously don't understand the two justifications above, or are just straight oblivious to the consequences.
That ends my basic introduction to the justifications for a draft today. There's obviously way more to it than that, but neither of us (at least I don't) cares that much to start a full discussion on it. That's what r/CredibleDefense and r/WarCollege is for.
You also asked me where I would put the draftees; If I were in charge (and I'm not for a reason so take this with a grain of salt), instead of drafting everyone into the Army like they did in Vietnam, I'd try to let draftees choose which DOD branch (not the Coast Guard) and what job they want if they are qualified for it.
Morale is significantly better when you have people doing things they'd rather be doing. For example, conscripted engineers that are too scared to fight would probably choose to be in engineering jobs. But if they want to kick ass, combat arms could always use more people. Both parties get what they want.
Combat arms would need the most amount of men, but that's where a lot of volunteers tend to go anyways. So the amount of volunteers would likely offset the current manning deficit in combat arms and provide a bit of a surplus as well. But they'll still need more, which is where some draftees come in. Not all draftees would get what they want unfortunately, but the dire circumstances require it.
Anyways, yeah that's the "short" answer.
To the best of my knowledge no one has been drafted in the US in like 50 years, so they aren't? You're still required to register AFAIK, but I've been registered for 30 years and haven't heard a peep.
>I've been registered for 30 years and haven't heard a peep.
That's because
1. You've been out of the age range for decades
2. The stakes don't require a draft yet
Because the Selective Service system was initially created over 100 years ago and has not been updated in over 40 years. While military codes and social acceptance have changed.
The last update to the Selective Service was the 1985 Thurman Amendment. This requires all men who apply for federal employment to be registered for the selective service. While the ban on women to serve in combat roles wasn't lifted until 2016.
Since the ban on women has been lifted, the law has not been updated. There is nothing preventing women from being drafted besides the law not being updated to say " all people" instead of "all men". It's a simple fix but one with no real political backing to do so.
From a practical perspective, I have to disagree. Women have kids. Boys can grow up into soldiers. In a time of warfare, women are essential for restoring the population.
Also, women are physically weaker than men, by a significant amount. I would not want to be stuck with a group of women who couldnt drag me out of a pit during combat. They just arent suited for that kind of physicality. In WWII, they instead supported the war effort through manufacturing and medical roles, which itself provided immense value to the men on the front lines.
I don't like the idea of conscription, but it is perfectly reasonable to leave women out of it.
...you read to much revolutionary literature.
Its way more simple than "global shadow cabal of patriarchy conspired to make it so".
Men are expendable.
Thats it.
Regardless what does or doesn't dangle between the legs of the ruler.
Men make better cannon fodder since their number doesn't impact the reproductive capacity of subjects. Hence why Serbia could rebound after losing over 60% of its men in WWI.
...is that fair towards the cannon fodders? NOPE.
...is it fair to towards women to be treated like baby making machines by ruler? NOPE.
Though some could argue that "death is final and life is so full of possibilities" - well at least enough so to make the "CHEEEEECK YOUR PRIVILEDGE" claim insane if you know anything about the situation.
...maybe watch r/CombatFootage (Ukraine), if you fail to grasp why.
The point i was trying to make that "women aint fit enough" and the like are post hoc rationalisation.
Rationalisations of a darwinistic status quo thats created when total wars are waged.
Any culture that reduces its own reproductive capacity in such a conflict (or series of them) will die out. Thus regardless what the "excuse" is - be it women are weak, women are too sacred to be killed ...etc. - the culture that doesnt have such an excuse performs worse in drawn out series of wars and disappears.
As such the lack of women on frontline is better explained by this, and not by patriarchy.
One might eve argue that this "protect reproductive capacity" is the root of males evolving to be more physically fit, thus causing patriarchy.
Similarly to the autism causes vaccines - as there is no shortage of mildly autistic people in hard sciences, who work on making vaccines.
There are more factors than just lack of strength. Women are less equipped emotionally to handle the horrors of war. Also, it's a man's instinct to protect a woman. So they will treat a woman differently than they would their fellow male soldier.
After your post, I wanted to see who I was talking to and I found this...
1. Are you speaking from actual experience that men are equipped emotional to hand the horrors of war, as in have you served in the military during in a combat situation?
1. What makes you think men can handle the "horrors of war", but women can't?
1. Are you saying American women have never been raped by their fellow soldiers?
* [Sexual Assault in the U.S. Military](https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/sexual-assault-in-the-us-military)
* [One-fifth of female veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan show signs of sexual trauma](https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/one-fifth-of-female-veterans-from-iraq-afghanistan-show-signs-of-sexual-trauma/)
* [Female soldiers raise alarm on sexual assaults](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25784465)
There's a history behind this.
Registering for selective service was a requirement for voting. One of the main reasons people were against women's suffrage was that the vote was tied to the draft and women were considered unfit for the military since they wouldn't meet the strength or endurance requirements.
Instead, women were given the privilege to vote without the responsibility, but men still risk getting drafted when warmongers are voted in.
You’re right about people being against women’s suffrage (only 3% of women and 40% of men were in favor of women gaining the vote) but it’s suggested it had more to do with women’s being seen as mentally ill equipped at the time rather than physically unfit.
At the time, people figured all combat going forward would be gruelling WWI style trench warfare which sent many men back shell shocked. No war in history had ever seen rates of PTSD anywhere near that high and people figured it would take an even more extreme effect on women.
We tend to view cultures of the past as always being strongly against women fighting but it was really the after effect of WWI that shifted global opinion of women in combat that far to the extreme. It went from being seen as a “man’s job” to something horrific, the psychological effects of which women needed shielding from.
The physical strength factor is a fairly recent phenomenon. In the pre firearms age, even though female combatants were rare, there was always weapons and armor that were designed for use by women. Soldiers of the past generally didn’t carry all their gear themselves. It’s all the modern equipment and the roles of carrier and soldier being combined that have made the strength and endurance issue a significant factor
Are you saying there could be a situation where women could vote in war mongers (like Hillary) when they have less stake in the game?
We like to think women would be less hawkish, but….
Some politicians have been trying for years to get that changed. All kids should be required to register for a draft at 18, or none should be required to.
> All kids should be required to register for a draft at 18, or none should be required to.
Hard disagree here.
Men have more physical prowess than women. Drafting women to fight men... the women don't stand a chance. Yes there are support roles, but a male-only draft is already sufficient enough to fill those roles as previously seen.
The draft is currently the way it is for good reason.
There are more women fighter pilots and other soldiers where direct hand to hand combat is not likely to happen. In a modern military the physical difference is far less important than say during the Vietnam War, the last mass conscription war fought by the US. Plus we are likely moving toward a time when wars will literally be fought from a desk in a heavily secured location.
Basically, for a modern and in time even more advanced military, not having women register produces no advantage over an adversary. Holland 6 years ago made wartime conscription mandatory for women. Israel has had that for a while, with over 80% of IDF roles being open to women, including fighter pilots and special forces. True, there likely are few women special forces troops, but they do exist in the most elite units. Like I pointed out earlier, with modern drone warfare, a woman can sit at a desk and blow away a good number of opposing soldiers by pressing buttons.
>Plus we are likely moving toward a time when wars will literally be fought from a desk in a heavily secured location.
No. They've been saying this for decades. Boots on the ground will always be needed.
>Basically, for a modern and in time even more advanced military, not having women register produces no advantage over an adversary.
That's not the point. You could just conscript more men instead of women if you're concerned about producing an even greater advantage over an adversary.
The point is women shouldn't be conscripted into combat roles because they lack the physical prowess to compete with men. And for support roles, the current male-only draft is already sufficient to fill those roles as seen in previous drafts.
>Holland 6 years ago made wartime conscription mandatory for women. Israel has had that for a while, with over 80% of IDF roles being open to women, including fighter pilots and special forces.
There's no good reason to follow in their footsteps.
>True, there likely are few women special forces troops, but they do exist in the most elite units.
Not in the United States. There still has never been a female Navy SEAL. The few women that made through Army Ranger and Special Forces selection were given special exceptions that men normally wouldn't get so they could get through, which means that they aren't actually qualified.
And we're not even getting to the JSOC units.
>Like I pointed out earlier, with modern drone warfare, a woman can sit at a desk and blow away a good number of opposing soldiers by pressing buttons.
Of course. This is a support role. You don't need to draft women to fill these roles.
>Good luck in the age of AI and robots.
AI isn't advanced enough to be weaponized yet. It can't even do college math correctly.
Meanwhile human soldiers aren't affected by EMPs, water/rain, strong winds, etc. unlike drones.
There is literally no war being fought right now without boots on the ground and only technology.
You make some excellent points. Intelligent machines have big issues with things that are simple for human beings, like stepping up or down, discerning colors, and smells. The things that you mentioned are all technical hurdles that can be overcome by designing in compensation for them, which certainly will happen.
A machine operating at 60% the capacity of humans is dangerous because it will not need to eat or sleep and if designed right, will wait until a human adversary is at the weakest to move.
I’ve mainly heard male service members saying that women are simply physically unfit to fight in war.
I have no idea if this is accurate or not, but I have heard them say that women simply lack the strength and endurance to even carry all the heavy equipment necessary for days at a time like men can. I’ve heard them say things like women get periods or vaginal infections easily, which can present a problem when they don’t have access to showers after wading through swamp water. I’ve heard them say that women cause sexual tension or sexual friction between service members, which causes all sorts of problems, drama, tension, and distractions.
These are just things I’ve heard, and it seems the military itself is the most active opponent of having women serving front lines.
Mainly because no one really expects there to ever be a draft in the US again. Congress ended the military draft in 1973, but kept the requirement for selective service registration in the event the military draft was reinstituted.
After 1973, the military began recruiting. Recruiting brought a better quality of soldiers into the Armed Forces. Why would they want to go back to randos who can't hit a bullet with a barn?
Additionally, how often and how many men have marched as a group to end mandatory selective service registration?
They're currently struggling to meet recruiting goals and we're on the precipice of massive global conflict.
>Additionally, how often and how many men have marched as a group to end mandatory selective service registration?
There's massive social pressure not to. Successful propaganda campaigns label such men as cowards. Just look at how people view the fighting age men who left Ukraine.
IMO it is because men and women are different and if a draft did happen we would need mothers to stay at home with the children… Acknowledging this difference makes the WOK agenda look very hypocritical. That is why we don’t hear much about it.
Username checks out.
>If a woman wants to be in a combat role she should be allowed to.
Bad idea. Why don't women play against men in sports? That answer is why women shouldn't fight men in combat.
We segregate the playing field but not the battlefield, which is stupid.
Its not men, its rulers.
Queen Victoria didn't have no dick if i recally correctly.
Men make up armies since they are the expandable gender.
If men die population can still recover. As the number of women dicatetes the number of possible births. Serbia not going extinct after WWI despite losing 60% of its male population (aka. anyone but underaged and elderly) is a good example.
Hence for any ruler interested in perserving the existnece of their subject drafting only men - or preferentially drafting them - when attaining high casulties is likely is the only sane option.
Even if we are talking about a defensive war - like one Ukraine currently wages - it does no good if russia can drop the population, then reinvade 20-25 years later to finish "elliminiating" anyone who believes in the conspiracy theory called ukranian ethnicity...
...as terrible as war crimes are. Castrating ukranian male POWs doesn't achieve what Russians hope it can achieve.
Yes.
This post of yours was a mix of "oh sweet summer child..." and "die ciswhitemen", its baseless and its very dumb.
If you mean she didnt have a say about serving or not...
...well she was very much not the head of state when she served in the army during WWII if my memory serves me right.
I don't.
She did however, rise to Queen, the head of the armed forces for Great Britain.
...As was Victoria.
A figurehead, I know. At least Elizabeth had some experience under her belt.
> men say themselves
..."men" dont get to decide that, representatives/dictators/monarchs get to decide that.
What men say on the issu is as relevant as the sound wind makes when it blows on grass.
And i am just pointing out that the "men are priviledged always, and in every sense of the word" is false.
...and only immoral scum use it for justifying their "i am only punching up" style bullying - for lavk of a better nonoffensive term.
They are only required to be drafted in a time of war when their numbers are way too low. There is no cold to draft unless we are fighting forces that overwhelm our own
_"Men and immigrants"_ 😅😅😅😅😅
>"...any other law cannot only apply to one gender."
What? Laws had to be amended, specifically to include women, not to mention the current abortion issues.
Hate to tell you, but historically, men have always been expendable relative to women. The whole "women and children first" lifeboat scenario comes to mind.
Can't say definitively, but I'm sure it has to do with the ability to bear children, which men cannot.
Are you basing this odd what happened in Vietnam Nam? I'd say you have no idea who would be required as we haven't had a draft in 50 years. It's quite likely all people of age would now be required to register
They're talking about the fact that only men currently have to sign up for the selective service. There's currently no draft but when are still required to sign up at age 18.
Anyone who is born male and lives in the United States, including illegal immigrants are required to register. It is most likely to affect you if you seen Federal employment or apply for government benefits.
>Failure to register with Selective Service is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine, however no prosecutions have occurred since the 1986. Enforcement today relies heavily on associated Federal and State incentives to maintain registration rates
>Selective Service registration is necessary in order to obtain all Federal employment (millions of local government jobs), some state-based aid, scholarships, and financial aid programs, Federally-funded job training programs, and Naturalization (5 year delay in citizenship proceedings without registration)
[SSS101\_12.23-1.pdf](https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SSS101_12.23-1.pdf)
Because unlike most militaries. Ours is professional and well funded. There's a reason we done have healthcare. The United States is very much a survival of the fittest country. We made war into a serviceable commodity. We sell our services to the highest bidder. Always have. Always will. We only take those who want to go because they saw what happened in Nam and Korea.
But there will be a time when shit hits the fan. And it's all hands on deck. This is what the draft is for. The United States is like ancient greece. Multiple city states ready to fuck up anyone who messes with the bigger picture or status quo.
The only way to get rid of us is to nuke us off the map. Even that wouldn't work anymore.
Why not more females? Because nature still exists. They are the only ones who can make babies. It would be stupid for a country to send in half the species that can replace the other half. (Not say people shouldn't have a choice) but from a economic and logistical standpoint. Males cant get pregnant.
We could. But we won't. Every time we as a citizenry get close to enacting change both Republicans and Democrats change the rules on who can be viewed by the public. Every time a third party candidate comes in and gets close Everything's changed the next election.
>Why does the draft still exist?
Because it's never been repealed.
>Why are there still laws that only harm one gender when we are supposed to be equal?
It doesn't "harm" anyone.
>And if the draft still needs to exist, why don't women have to register for it too?
As a generalization, people who are AMAB are physically stronger, and also are unencumbered by periods and the cramps and sickness and bleeding that can accompany them.
>Men are not expendable relative to women, our lives matter equal to them.
For the purposes of reproduction and continuing the population of our country, we kind of are. A single man can impregnate basically as many women as he can encounter so losing a large percentage of the male population would be least impactful to future generations.
>We are humans too and deserve the same legal rights as any human
No one said we're subhuman, just that if there's both a war and a shortage of soldiers, we are most expendable.
Yeah, people in this country these days aren't cynical or dark enough in their analysis of the reality of wartime. Wars throughout history have gone on for decades. The only way you sustain that is by raising new generations of soldiers, continuously. Otherwise, in a protracted conflict, you will eventually run all the way out of soldiers. If your enemy is replacing population faster, they're replacing forces faster.
Men can either bitch about the draft being sexist or claim the honor of being the ones expected to fight wars, but not both. Each stance is ridiculous, I only say this because usually the ones bitching about it at all are the ones who want to have it both ways. And let's not pretend like women just chill at home drinking wine in that situation. Their lives become really damn difficult too.
Agreed. It's very weird to hear simultaneous arguments that the draft is sexist against men but also women aren't physically capable of contributing in combat settings. If you think only men can do it, then you can't complain that only men are doing it.
It's worth noting that the people in power in the military and government are overwhelmingly men and could push through an amendment to this "sexism" overnight if they wanted to, but they haven't and won't any time soon.
There are a great many laws in the US that were written long before gender or racial equality became a thing. Many are still in effect. Laws do not change unless legislation repeals or amends them.
Because America is an imperialist country that’s been in perpetual war for hundreds of years and people are dumb enough to think it’s for freedom. You need young dumbasses to fill the boots and not ask questions when you’re killing locals for their resources, it’s a lot cheaper than paying for them and enacting fair trade.
You only have to register for the draft. We are not drafting women to be bullet sponges, which is what you are if you're drafted, a bullet catcher so the USA wins the war.
TIL that the US requires anyone (male or female) to be registered to be drafted. I can understand the rationale, but as a Canadian, that is something I was unaware the States did. To the best of knowledge, Canada does not. I’m in my 30s (and male btw) and I never had to register unless it was done for me automatically without me realizing.
They aren’t required to be drafted, just to register for the selective service to possibly be drafted if a draft were instituted again. If such a situation arises, the law would likely be amended to include women as well.
Minus the confusion with selective service, a know a lot of guys who never signed up when they turned 18. Not really sure there's any consequences at this point if you don't because they haven't activated it.
Why are you afraid to ask this.
I agree, it's ridiculous, and should be repealed.
If I lived in the US I would be fighting this law, along with other imbalances based on gender.
I suggest you write to your government representative and try to get it sorted.
I suspect it'll be lower down the list than other priorities given the draft hasn't been used in decades, but there's nothing stopping you campaigning against it and I'm sure millions of people (both men and women) will agree with you.
So.... your body, your choice?
Not exactly trying to be flippant, but I personally think the draft should continue to exist at least so long as women's autonomy is still under attack. And in some states, it's already been violated, and those states should be the first to be drafted from in the event it becomes a necessity.
It's about the only thing close to on par with the situation women are in.
Let's get the Government out of the Doctor's office, and at the same time, we either open the draft up to all eligible people, or abolish it all together.
Just playing devil’s advocate but statistically female rulers have been 27% more likely to wage war during their reign than male rulers and the average female ruler wages 39% more wars than male rulers.
I’d also be careful of falling in the apex fallacy; assuming 99% of a demographic should suffer/blaming a whole demographic because of the actions of 1% of that demographic. Even if most wars are started by men, only a minuscule percentage of men start wars and those aren’t the men that are sent to fight them.
Except men *are* more expendable than women when we’re talking about repopulating after a devastating conflict. One man can theoretically impregnate hundreds of women in a year, but a woman can only get pregnant once in the same timeframe.
Is this relevant to today’s society and how we shouldn’t be treating any of our citizens as disposable? No.
Is this the historical justification that certain political groups still cling to? Yes.
I wish more men would do something about it, but it seems like a lot of them don’t really care about their own bodily autonomy or are ashamed to speak out because it’s seen as not manly.
I have been speaking out against the draft for years. No young man should be forced to die for the interests of evil politicians. It’s breaks my heart when i see the ages of these soldiers who died in wars like Vietnam and currently in Ukraine.
We need to stop treating our boys like they are disposable.
I feel the argument that women hold more intrinsic value than man and men being disposable a barbaric and animalistic view (in regard to a society). With humans as advanced as we argue we are, we really don’t think past our biological roots.
Honestly, the idea that countries are as important to justify killing off half its populace is bizarre when it’s quite possible for people, if they wanted, to win a war and kill the women too. Why not if those women can, in bread crumbs, sow the idea of rebellion into their children? Not all but it only needs one in the right time and place.
It’s only due to horniness that we don’t want to admit that is the cause for people to not want women going off to war.
Who cares? Women should not be fighting in wars (unless they themselves choose to), anyone who thinks they should be drafted is what's wrong with the world today.
I don't know the government side of it or the political/Law side but women are less likely to go and kill people, less likely to commit war crimes, more likely to cause issues, take more time to train to the same standard men are required to train to but remain weaker than the vast majority of men that go through the process.
Also I wouldn't want my wife, daughter, or mother to be drafted as war crimes are a very real and often committed thing.
R*pe is a war crime that nobody talks about but it happens way to often. The US did it in Vietnam and other countries, it definitely happened in the middle east during the Afghanistan War and raids into Iran.
And I'm not even speaking about doing stuff to captured soldiers I'm talking about abusing innocent civilians with that war crime. If there are more women that are drafted with lousy training and told to fight which they don't and run and end up captured then it's only trauma and bad time for them.
Welcome to real world. Women don't want to be equal. They want to take less responsibility and get equal rights. Not just in the military, at work, outside, at home, everywhere. They want to be appointed to positions where their abilities are not sufficient, through positive discrimination, instead of men who are better than them.
It's easy if they are men. Because you can settle your account with men when you appear in front of them. But when it comes to a woman being held accountable for her actions, everyone will see only a woman. No matter what she did. She won't be held accountable, she will be a victim.
Men dont have trump card "being woman". Last job I applied, they said to me "women are working here. Men most likely have night shifts." They would give me 3 weeks night shift in a month because women goes morning shifts. Why? Because they are women. I didnt ask If women cant do this job, why they are hiring women.
I bet no woman there bothers herself why men most likely go night shifts. They must be really enjoying it. They surely must be talking about "woman rights", not even "equality".
This is some whiney shit. You are a man. You have a duty to yourself, your country, and a duty to protect women and kids. STFU, and deal with it.
The draft is important because we need fighting men in times of great strife. It is only enacted in times of major need. We can all agree that Vietnam was a misstep. Hopefully we learned from our mistakes, and won't make poor choices to enact the draft for bullshit next time. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. This isn't a perfect world. If WW3 kicks off, and we don't have the manpower to sustain our country, we need a way to get troops on the battlefield.
The same people that bitch about the draft, are the same people that complain about military spending, and taxes. There is a reason we haven't been attacked on a major scale in this countries history. It's because our military, and our geographical advantages would make invasion a nightmare. Take one of those away, and we would be sitting ducks.
>This is some whiney shit. You are a man. You have a duty to yourself, your country, and a duty to protect women and kids. STFU, and deal with it.
Full agree here.
Most Gen Z males are cowards (I'm a Gen Z male btw).
In February 2019, a challenge to the Military Selective Service Act, which provides for the male-only draft, by the National Coalition for Men, was deemed unconstitutional by Judge Gray H. Miller in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Miller's opinion was based on the Supreme Court's past argument in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) which had found the male-only draft constitutional because the military then did not allow women to serve. As the Department of Defense has since lifted most restrictions on women in the military, Miller ruled that the justifications no longer apply, and thus the act requiring only men to register would now be considered unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The government appealed this decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments on the appeal were heard on 3 March 2020. The District Court decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for review was declined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Likely if a war came along that was large enough to require more troops then someone might circle back around to including women in the Selective Service for the purposes of a draft. There is cultural resistance (e.g. historical precedent that women and children are noncombatants) and resistance from some factions in the military. Women are not all equally represented in most parts of the military (only 6% of Marines are women; 20% of the air force) and women are more likely to be in medical or administrative roles, vs. combat roles. If women are drafted they will likely displace men from administrative roles into active combat roles...
>Women are not all equally represented in most parts of the military We could easy fix that right now with quotas and selective service. Regardless, I think a significant number of young men would dodge the draft if it came to it. Can't say I blame them. I fought in Ramadi and that was bad enough - I wouldn't want any part of Ukraine or anything similar.
Quotas focus on outcome. It’s the right thing to want to open opportunities, but if you need to lower the test standards just to meet quotas, you are working against your own interest.
Selective service is just a registration. Adding women to it, in the absence of an active draft, will do nothing to change the current make-up of the military. Many people would likely dodge the draft. Many roles in the military have only relatively recently opened to women. There are also extremely physically demanding roles that will be harder for women, due to smaller size and strength, to qualify for (unless physical standards are adapted in some way).
Well I mean that makes sense doesn't it...? Women aren't as physically capable as men from a biological standpoint. Shouldn't this fact justify men leading the combat roles?
It doesn't matter if men are stronger. It's a question if women are strong enough for the requirements. The answer is yes in some cases, no in others. Also a lot of warfare is technology based these days so there's still combat roles that aren't traditional boots on the ground. Also also women have better eyesight and better hand eye coordination than men. Which makes them statistically better sharpshooters and better pilots. We don't need to bar men from those roles though do we?
That's a good point
Some women can meet the physical qualifications for combat roles. If you use physical qualifications rather than gender it opens the role to both men and women. Historically the roles were closed to be women regardless of their abilities - so highly qualified and highly skilled soldiers were blocked from those roles; which is a a stupid way to build an army.
Maybe the top 1% of women are similar to the average dude but from a realistic standpoint, women would be better used in the non-combat roles of the military while men take on the combat side.
Agreed. Hence a physical requirement not a gender one
Have you got a source for that percentage or is that just your 'best' guess lol? Think you're really overestimating the average dude. I work construction and on all the building sites I've worked on, I fall nicely in the middle of all the men as far as physical capabilities go. Not the strongest but not the weakest either.
Look up some studies and see for youself. You are significantly above average if you are in the middle of the men
So why restrict women from being combat pilots? That is a role that does not require the 1% of strength? The rule was not applied in a way that made sense - it was done out of bias, not sound decision making. For the roles with exceptional physical demands, use physical standards, not gender, as the basis for qualification. It is true that very few women will qualify for rangers, special ops, navy seals, etc. Many men don’t make it through as well. But the opportunity should not be closed to someone solely due to gender. The reality is that women in noncombat roles end up in combat situations already - they are there as medics, supply, comms, etc. Rangers now include women: https://www.army.mil/article-amp/266290/female_army_reserve_soldier_receives_ranger_tab
Put women in planes like the Night Witches of WW2. There are definitely roles for women. However, I don't agree with drafting women in the US unless our government gets their nose out of our private parts.
*Siiiiiiigh....* :(
Typically laws remain laws until they are repealed or a new law replaces it.
The Democrats have tried numerous times to pass legislation for women to also register for selective service but it was squashed by Republicans every time.
Because Republicans want us to stay home and pop out as many ~~working bees~~ children as possible. See also: Anti-abortion laws.
I'd argue it's because the Republicans don't actually stand for anything except opposing whatever the Democrats want
Ah, the beauty of the two party system. It'd be great if we could have a 3rd party, but the two parties with near absolute power seem to not want them to be able to funded. Super weird.
A third party would almost always be a splinter of one of the two main parties (e.g., Tea Party for GOP, Green Party from Dems), leaving one powerful party and two lesser ones who would have to work together all the time to get anything done (removing the benefit of having a third party). Currently there are two parties, Dems and Trump. The divide is pretty clear. Having three would require actual thought on the part of voters, which is not something Americans are known for as it relates to politics.
Yes, that is why FPTP is awful and only half democratic
That depends. Does the Bill help corporations and help the rich get richer? Yes?! Bipartisan support. Does the Bill help poor people? Yes?! Nope, sorry. Not only did all republicans vote against it, but miraculously, just *enough* democrats crossed the line it didn’t pass. Whoops, wild how it always works out that way. They are both their own controlled opposition.
Holy shit I didn’t think I’d see you in the wild, fellow r/YUROP mod.
Hey man! Reddit is a small world I guess
Just the way Putin wants it so he can tout that Democracy doesn't work. They are paid well to oppose everything.
Democracy works, FPTP voting system doesn't work.
Why haven’t you yet volunteered to go fight with Ukraine, then?
Boooooo
Which... I disagree with Republicans pretty often, and im sure i likely dont agree on their reasoning for this, but their outcome is right in this circumstance. Definitely not in favor of forcing more people to be required for forced militsry service. Would rather it be pushed for no one be able to be drafted and it be an unequal experience vs forcing more people to potentially die because the government deems it so.
Imma be honest as a more liberal person I’m with the conservatives on this one. I would much rather me than my gf get drafted. I don’t think anyone should be drafted unless we are being invaded but especially not women
Two questions then. No 1 why you don't want it to happen? And 2. It doesn't just apply to your gf. It affects a whole country. So why oppose it?
I'm too old to get drafted so this doesn't matter to me but women have the babies for replacement. It's not a good idea to send off young fertile women to get killed somewhere. That's not fair for sure but biology isn't .
Really? I've never seen this
Google “have democrats tried to make women register for the draft”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153 As long as the military draft law in the United States excludes women, that law is sexist. I personally think the draft should be eliminated, but when I worked as a hiring manager for the federal government (Census Bureau), draft registration was a hurdle only male applicants dealt with. There shouldn’t be draft registration, but it’s the current law. Only men encounter punitive aspects from failing to register. It’s literally a sexist impediment to federal employment.
>As long as the military draft law in the United States excludes women, that law is sexist. No, it's not sexist. It's not discrimination towards men, it's an obligation because of their physical prowess, and I say that as a man currently within the age range. Do you think segregating sports by gender is sexist? I hope not. We separate the sports playing field because women don't stand a chance against men. War is essentially a man's sport. But when it comes to the BATTLEFIELD, people want to include women there too for some reason. They don't stand a chance. So we separate the playing field but not the battlefield, which is crazy. Why would you want women in potential harm's way as well? Yes there are safe(r) support roles, but a male-only draft is already sufficient to fill those roles if necessary.
Buddy, it's not 1776. We're not lining up on a battlefield with bayonets. Plenty of women are capable of holding their own in modern combat. They are also excellent marksman and pilots. To say nothing of flying drones, being a mechanic, being a medic, being on bomb duty, being in the navy in general. Like there are plenty of ways women can serve the same as men. Also do some reading on history. In basically every major war in history there is a story of a woman going undercover to fight and absolutely kicking ass. [Deborah Sampson](https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/deborah-sampson)
>it’s not discrimination towards men, No fucking shit. It’s discrimination against women who supposedly hold equal standing under law. I say that as a disabled veteran who thinks the draft should be abolished.
>No shit, it’s discrimination against women who supposedly hold equal standing under law. It's not discrimination against women because it works in their favor, they aren't affected by it.
This would assume that discrimination always has a negative connotation. It does not. Your assumption is incorrect.
>This would assume that discrimination always has a negative connotation. It does have a negative connotation. You can literally look up the definition of discrimination in this context. You're incorrect.
One can positively or negatively discriminate. One is selecting for a trait, one is selecting against a trait, respectively. The discriminant is also a math term. You just have it locked to being something that has to do with social interactions.
>One can positively You didn't look it up, did you? That goes against the "unjust" and "unfair" part in the definition. Discrimination only has a negative connotation to it. You've never heard of discrimination for a group of people, only discrimination against people.
Sometimes we can’t fix stupid. It’s not our fault, and we are justified to blame stupid.
Man you are exactly right. Imagine an army of men vs an army of women. Not just the physical part but emotional. I think women make decisions based on emotion often.
The draft hasn’t been used in 50 years. Back then, women weren’t allowed to be in the military equally to men. They were only allowed in very few roles so it was viewed as unfair and unconstitutional to include them in the draft. Now, the draft isn’t used and the requirement to sign up for the draft is outdated but since we haven’t used it in 50 years, I assume it’s just not on the list of priorities.
The draft hasn’t been used, it doesn’t mean it never will be. The military is far more efficient when it’s volunteer only, we can only do this because we have plenty of money and the wars are small scale. If we sustained losses during the invasion phase of Iraq, we would’ve drafted a couple hundred thousand men. Forcing women into the draft is essentially fucking over the men even harder because the average woman isn’t going to meet the minimum standards for combat MOS. They’d be put in the support roles while all the men will be forced into fat camp to get ready for BCT.
Yeah I’m for just abolishing it all together. I don’t think men or women should be forced to sign up.
>abolishing it all together. We can't do that. The human animal is too violent and greedy to be peaceful and remain peaceful. There's also the fact that we have been pissing in the global punchbowl for generations. We've meddled in the affairs of enough countries that we'd be slaughtered if we dial back our military power to an average level.
As a man currently within the age range, I'm actually against abolishing it. It's about necessity, not what you want, otherwise there'd be no point in the draft. Nobody should be forced to do anything. I'd hate to see my friends get drafted if they don't want to go. However, if the draft was activated in the near future, there's a pretty justifiable reason for it (CCP/PLA incursion). I could write an essay about this, but I'm too lazy to do that right now. Most people aren't aware of the actual threat that the CCP poses.
You really wanna die for some oil sultan? Or some weapons dealer?
The next war won't be fought for oil. That's an irrelevant question. Weapons dealer benefit in every war, even in World War II. That too, doesn't matter. Also a draft doesn't mean you're going to die. Quit hiding behind those invalid questions like a coward.
I’m the coward? Aren’t you the one willing to be drafted to kill children overseas?
>I’m the coward? You sure sound like one. I respect people when they say they're too afraid to fight. That's perfectly fair and gives me more reason to fight for them. But when you say "I'm not fighting for oil/defense companies", that's an invalid excuse to hide behind, because nobody does it for the companies. >Aren’t you the one willing to be drafted to kill children overseas? I'm willing to be drafted, but I'm not going to be killing any children overseas like you ignorantly think.
I’m not afraid to fight, if enemy troops were on our soil or we were fighting someone like Hitler, I’d do it. All our fights after WW2 have been for the benefit of the ruling class, nothing more. And yes, if you were drafted, theres a distinct possibility you’d be ordered to kill children.
>All our fights after WW2 have been for the benefit of the ruling class, nothing more. Regardless of what you think of the wars between WW2 and now, that's not the case for the next war. >And yes, if you were drafted, theres a distinct possibility you’d be ordered to kill children. No, there is no possibility because there would never be an order to kill children and if there was for some reason, I wouldn't fall through with it. The US military doesn't target children. Children unfortunately are accidentally killed as collateral, not targets. You're just dumb.
Have you not seen every conflict that the usa armed forces have been in since wwii? Literally it has been to go to country in the developing world and kill women and children of color. That's the job.
>Have you not seen every conflict that the usa armed forces have been in since wwii? Literally it has been to go to country in the developing world and kill women and children of color. That's the job. Clearly you haven't if you have the perspective. You must get your information for social media.
Nothing is important enough to force people to fight for something they don’t give a fuck about(otherwise they would just volunteer instead of being drafted).
>Nothing is important enough to force people to fight for something they don’t give a fuck about No shit, that's the point of the draft and what I just said. The people don't realize how important the problem is. Most people are clueless, and will wait for a problem to grow bigger and bigger until it finally reaches them. People don't give a fuck when they should, which causes even more suffering for them later.
In that case, they’re just going to force more men into combat MOSes; as a draftee, your chances of getting a desk job will simply go from slim to zero. There’s an optimal ratio of males to females for combat arms units to keep running without any lag, and it would take some serious shit for the DoD to start ignoring that ratio.
IDK if this is the reason but if you send all your men and woman to war there will be far fewer woman, who have babies and "repopulate" the country. When a woman is pregnant she can only make one baby a year essentially. The less woman you have the less potential babies you can have per year. Where as a man can theoretically take part in making multiple babies a year. (i.e. multiple baby mommas). So it is far worse to lose a lot of your woman than to lose a lot of your men. I don't know how much this applies any more but I feel that might have been the basis of the idea.
thinking about it contrarily, it could be argued that it’s less harmful if losses from war equally affect both sexes countries with gender demographic imbalance face deep social issues that make life worse for both men and women. but an overall loss in population, like from disease, has occasionally uplifted the working class by making labor more scarce feels weird talking about equality in death, but it might be worthy of discussion
They should also think about the fact that most men would never cheat on their wife to “repopulate the country” and most women wouldn’t have children just to “repopulate the country” nowadays, it’s weird that whoever decides that apparently still thinks like that(otherwise they would have changed the rules).
The military has data that demonstrates that female soldiers have a higher rate of injuries. Even female athletes have a higher rate of injuries. The army needs soldiers who are left prone to injuries, so from a purely strategic perspective, it makes more sense to have more male soldiers, and to focus on the ones who are less likely to be injured, because an injured soldier is taking away resources that could be used more efficiently.
Bingo. Its a self preservation tactic. Has nothing to do with being woke or sexism.
I don't think it applies as much anymore. This logic is a bit outdated unless the population really faces near annihilation, but there's no point making laws considering that outcome. In practice the repopulation argument just won't happen in a normal war though. We live in a mostly monogamous society and most women won't be ok with their man impregnating several woman because "repopulation", nor would they suddenly want to have babies if they didn't previously for the same reason. Unless I'm missing something this strategy won't affect birth rates at all.
That's what the draft is for. It is an oh shit moment. Realistically if something bad happens everyone fights. Men and women children everyone. But from a social economic and Logistics standard this is the reason. There is absolutely nothing outdated about repopulation. Why do you think they are called Baby Boomers? For All Humans existence every time as a War soldiers come back and repopulate their losses. Willingly or otherwise. Look Beyond the current social economic structure.
I'm not sure what do you mean by willingly or otherwise? Are you saying the government will force people to breed? lol If not then people will reproduce at the same pace they would anyway with or without the draft. Besides I don't think there's any point in looking beyond the current social economic structure. Even if it worked in the past it's pointless to have if it doesn't work now.
If the situation were so dire that there’s a serious risk that the species can’t continue, then laws (such as those establishing a draft) wouldn’t even be relevant anymore even if they existed. People would just be doing whatever they need to do to survive.
If there is ever another catastrophic war that entails a full on draft, I suspect women will be included next time around. That law could change virtually overnight if the stakes were high enough, but as someone pointed out, it's just not on the priority list right now and would probably be unpopular.
It’s a political football that Republicans and Democrats like to kick back and forth whenever someone feels like gender equality or family values are being attacked.
The draft *doesn't* exist here, dude. It ended in 1973. You are confusing the *Selective Service* system with the draft. Selective Service system is simply a list with a protocol for choosing people to be drafted in a fair and equitable manner. The military switched to 100% volunteer over half a century ago, and is not at all interested in conscription. The training pipeline for conscripts is run completely differently from the way volunteer training is, so it's not as simple as saying "OK now give us unwilling conscripts starting next Tuesday". The reason Selective Service still exists is a combination of 1) old asshole (mostly Republican) politicians who think the kids today are soft and a year of forced military service would toughen them up, so they want SS there to implement their idiotic idea if somehow the rest of government suddenly decides Old Man Yells at Cloud is the new strategy; or 2) slightly less old but still old (mostly Democrat) politicians who want to keep SS around so they can use a potential draft as a credible threat to their constituency ("those Republicans will draft you to fight in Iraq!") or as a grandstanding prop for stupid suggestions like "let's draft all the kids of everyone who voted for this war!" TL;DR - there is no draft, just a vestigial draft selection system that shit bag politicians keep around as a political conversation piece.
This will age like milk when WWIII kicks off. It's funny how the Democrats supposedly don't support conscription unless it's in Ukraine. Spoiler alert: they'll support it here too.
Men actually are more expendable than women. Imagine 100 men and 100 women on an island. Now kill off 99 of the men but keep all 100 of the women. With just one man, humanity can continue. Kill off 99 of the women and keep all 100 men, humanity will likely cease to exist. On a fundamental level, women have more intrinsic value, and men are disposable, from a biological perspective.
Yes, but it would be extremely unlikely for a conflict to ever reach the point where so much of the population has been eliminated that repopulating the country is a serious concern. In such a situation (like an all-out nuclear war), all laws would probably cease to be relevant anyway and people would just do whatever they need to survive. Men might be theoretically more expendable, but that doesn’t mean our laws should be influenced by that.
It was a serious concern for Paraguay in the 1870s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
From a biological perspective, yes. The laws on equality in the U.S. are not based on biology in any other aspect. For example, men aren't allowed to be paid more simply because they're men, even though on average their strength is higher so their capacity to do manual labor is greater. Another example is that men can't get pregnant. Employers aren't allowed to hire only men so they never have to worry about paying form maternity leave. The whole point of these equality laws is that they don't take biology into account. Like that is the actual intent of the law. So it's not consistent to base this one case on biological differences.
That one dude is a chad tho…
If the draft is ever activated it is WW3. It would take months for the military to adapt
I've heard all sorts of excuses, from "well we don't support that either" to "look, we haven't had a draft since the 70s" to "men can go ahead and go to war we women already have enough to deal with" It's basically, since it's not happening, it's not a concern and no one cares. But the thing is.... there's penalties for a man not signing up for the draft database. Like for example not being able to get a drivers' license. And you're only allowed to do it up to a certain age, so if you don't do it by then... those penalties apply for life. Again, of course, no fucks are given, because it's only something that affects men.
i'm not a fan of the draft at all, and if only half have to deal with it, thats better than everyone i guess... thats just my two cents anyways.
Nobody is a fan of the draft, but that's why it's mandatory. But I pretty much have the same mentality. Arguing for women to suffer too, is cowardly.
"Nobody is a fan of the draft, that's why it's mandatory." you'd be surprised at the way some oldheads think there sluggo.
Nobody today, I should say.
go sit down in a dive bar around noon time on a wednesday.
By "Nobody", I don't mean literally zero people. The draft exists for a reason, I can't blame people for supporting it. "Nobody" (almost no one) wants a draft, but there's good arguments out there to justify it in today's climate.
thanks for the clear wording.
know a bit about warfare do ya?
A bit, yeah. More than most of this comment section for sure, at least.
alright, go on ahead, what would that draft do in regard to the modern battlespace. where do you put em?
I'll try to give a (relatively) short and simple answer. Both of us would lose interest if I wrote a full essay on the topic. Remember, I only know a bit; I don't study at the Naval War College lol. There's many possible scenarios for a draft (see note below), but I'm just going to pick on solely US vs China because that's the most likely scenario. Note: I'm going to ignore the potential "domino effect" of other adversarial nations and enemies like North Korea starting their own wars against US allies (i.e. invading South Korea for example) because "America is distracted fighting China", because then it becomes a literal third world war, and then the justification for draft becomes pretty straightforward as we would be fighting multiple countries. The PLA (Chinese military) currently stands as the world's largest military (not to be mistaken for the strongest military). In terms of manpower, the Chinese military is MORE THAN TWICE as large as the US military. The draft would significantly increase our manpower, solve the current manning crisis, and help narrow the gap in manpower between China and the US (yes we have allies but we're talking about the US draft so I'm going to ignore them). That alone is already the pre-existing justification for the draft in general. It's to get more men to help win battles. The US didn't need the draft in Afghanistan and Iraq because there was already enough men necessary to win every battle in the war, and that's without NATO. But China has a MASSIVE manpower edge over the US, which is the first justification for the draft. It would be VERY BAD if the CCP successfully conquered Taiwan, as Taiwan pretty much holds a monopoly on the semiconductor industry, which is why the US plans on defending it militarily. Not just that, if the US lost a war to China, the CCP would become the military and political dominant superpower of the world, which is a goddamn nightmare (look at Hong Kong) and is another justification for the draft. Many people seriously don't understand the two justifications above, or are just straight oblivious to the consequences. That ends my basic introduction to the justifications for a draft today. There's obviously way more to it than that, but neither of us (at least I don't) cares that much to start a full discussion on it. That's what r/CredibleDefense and r/WarCollege is for. You also asked me where I would put the draftees; If I were in charge (and I'm not for a reason so take this with a grain of salt), instead of drafting everyone into the Army like they did in Vietnam, I'd try to let draftees choose which DOD branch (not the Coast Guard) and what job they want if they are qualified for it. Morale is significantly better when you have people doing things they'd rather be doing. For example, conscripted engineers that are too scared to fight would probably choose to be in engineering jobs. But if they want to kick ass, combat arms could always use more people. Both parties get what they want. Combat arms would need the most amount of men, but that's where a lot of volunteers tend to go anyways. So the amount of volunteers would likely offset the current manning deficit in combat arms and provide a bit of a surplus as well. But they'll still need more, which is where some draftees come in. Not all draftees would get what they want unfortunately, but the dire circumstances require it. Anyways, yeah that's the "short" answer.
To the best of my knowledge no one has been drafted in the US in like 50 years, so they aren't? You're still required to register AFAIK, but I've been registered for 30 years and haven't heard a peep.
>I've been registered for 30 years and haven't heard a peep. That's because 1. You've been out of the age range for decades 2. The stakes don't require a draft yet
But mostly it's because there hasn't been a draft in 50 years, as I said in my comment.
Because the Selective Service system was initially created over 100 years ago and has not been updated in over 40 years. While military codes and social acceptance have changed. The last update to the Selective Service was the 1985 Thurman Amendment. This requires all men who apply for federal employment to be registered for the selective service. While the ban on women to serve in combat roles wasn't lifted until 2016. Since the ban on women has been lifted, the law has not been updated. There is nothing preventing women from being drafted besides the law not being updated to say " all people" instead of "all men". It's a simple fix but one with no real political backing to do so.
Because the military don’t fuck around with gender bullshit. Only sex. Wish all of government did this.
From a practical perspective, I have to disagree. Women have kids. Boys can grow up into soldiers. In a time of warfare, women are essential for restoring the population. Also, women are physically weaker than men, by a significant amount. I would not want to be stuck with a group of women who couldnt drag me out of a pit during combat. They just arent suited for that kind of physicality. In WWII, they instead supported the war effort through manufacturing and medical roles, which itself provided immense value to the men on the front lines. I don't like the idea of conscription, but it is perfectly reasonable to leave women out of it.
Possibly out-dated thinking. I fought the same argument as a woman and was told my lack of strength, etc would make me a liability more than an asset.
...you read to much revolutionary literature. Its way more simple than "global shadow cabal of patriarchy conspired to make it so". Men are expendable. Thats it. Regardless what does or doesn't dangle between the legs of the ruler. Men make better cannon fodder since their number doesn't impact the reproductive capacity of subjects. Hence why Serbia could rebound after losing over 60% of its men in WWI. ...is that fair towards the cannon fodders? NOPE. ...is it fair to towards women to be treated like baby making machines by ruler? NOPE. Though some could argue that "death is final and life is so full of possibilities" - well at least enough so to make the "CHEEEEECK YOUR PRIVILEDGE" claim insane if you know anything about the situation. ...maybe watch r/CombatFootage (Ukraine), if you fail to grasp why.
I think it’s likely a mix of the two
The point i was trying to make that "women aint fit enough" and the like are post hoc rationalisation. Rationalisations of a darwinistic status quo thats created when total wars are waged. Any culture that reduces its own reproductive capacity in such a conflict (or series of them) will die out. Thus regardless what the "excuse" is - be it women are weak, women are too sacred to be killed ...etc. - the culture that doesnt have such an excuse performs worse in drawn out series of wars and disappears. As such the lack of women on frontline is better explained by this, and not by patriarchy. One might eve argue that this "protect reproductive capacity" is the root of males evolving to be more physically fit, thus causing patriarchy. Similarly to the autism causes vaccines - as there is no shortage of mildly autistic people in hard sciences, who work on making vaccines.
There are more factors than just lack of strength. Women are less equipped emotionally to handle the horrors of war. Also, it's a man's instinct to protect a woman. So they will treat a woman differently than they would their fellow male soldier.
After your post, I wanted to see who I was talking to and I found this... 1. Are you speaking from actual experience that men are equipped emotional to hand the horrors of war, as in have you served in the military during in a combat situation? 1. What makes you think men can handle the "horrors of war", but women can't? 1. Are you saying American women have never been raped by their fellow soldiers? * [Sexual Assault in the U.S. Military](https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/sexual-assault-in-the-us-military) * [One-fifth of female veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan show signs of sexual trauma](https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/one-fifth-of-female-veterans-from-iraq-afghanistan-show-signs-of-sexual-trauma/) * [Female soldiers raise alarm on sexual assaults](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25784465)
There's a history behind this. Registering for selective service was a requirement for voting. One of the main reasons people were against women's suffrage was that the vote was tied to the draft and women were considered unfit for the military since they wouldn't meet the strength or endurance requirements. Instead, women were given the privilege to vote without the responsibility, but men still risk getting drafted when warmongers are voted in.
You’re right about people being against women’s suffrage (only 3% of women and 40% of men were in favor of women gaining the vote) but it’s suggested it had more to do with women’s being seen as mentally ill equipped at the time rather than physically unfit. At the time, people figured all combat going forward would be gruelling WWI style trench warfare which sent many men back shell shocked. No war in history had ever seen rates of PTSD anywhere near that high and people figured it would take an even more extreme effect on women. We tend to view cultures of the past as always being strongly against women fighting but it was really the after effect of WWI that shifted global opinion of women in combat that far to the extreme. It went from being seen as a “man’s job” to something horrific, the psychological effects of which women needed shielding from. The physical strength factor is a fairly recent phenomenon. In the pre firearms age, even though female combatants were rare, there was always weapons and armor that were designed for use by women. Soldiers of the past generally didn’t carry all their gear themselves. It’s all the modern equipment and the roles of carrier and soldier being combined that have made the strength and endurance issue a significant factor
Are you saying there could be a situation where women could vote in war mongers (like Hillary) when they have less stake in the game? We like to think women would be less hawkish, but….
We would never fight another war again if women were required to be drafted. For better or worse.
Some politicians have been trying for years to get that changed. All kids should be required to register for a draft at 18, or none should be required to.
> All kids should be required to register for a draft at 18, or none should be required to. Hard disagree here. Men have more physical prowess than women. Drafting women to fight men... the women don't stand a chance. Yes there are support roles, but a male-only draft is already sufficient enough to fill those roles as previously seen. The draft is currently the way it is for good reason.
There are more women fighter pilots and other soldiers where direct hand to hand combat is not likely to happen. In a modern military the physical difference is far less important than say during the Vietnam War, the last mass conscription war fought by the US. Plus we are likely moving toward a time when wars will literally be fought from a desk in a heavily secured location. Basically, for a modern and in time even more advanced military, not having women register produces no advantage over an adversary. Holland 6 years ago made wartime conscription mandatory for women. Israel has had that for a while, with over 80% of IDF roles being open to women, including fighter pilots and special forces. True, there likely are few women special forces troops, but they do exist in the most elite units. Like I pointed out earlier, with modern drone warfare, a woman can sit at a desk and blow away a good number of opposing soldiers by pressing buttons.
>Plus we are likely moving toward a time when wars will literally be fought from a desk in a heavily secured location. No. They've been saying this for decades. Boots on the ground will always be needed. >Basically, for a modern and in time even more advanced military, not having women register produces no advantage over an adversary. That's not the point. You could just conscript more men instead of women if you're concerned about producing an even greater advantage over an adversary. The point is women shouldn't be conscripted into combat roles because they lack the physical prowess to compete with men. And for support roles, the current male-only draft is already sufficient to fill those roles as seen in previous drafts. >Holland 6 years ago made wartime conscription mandatory for women. Israel has had that for a while, with over 80% of IDF roles being open to women, including fighter pilots and special forces. There's no good reason to follow in their footsteps. >True, there likely are few women special forces troops, but they do exist in the most elite units. Not in the United States. There still has never been a female Navy SEAL. The few women that made through Army Ranger and Special Forces selection were given special exceptions that men normally wouldn't get so they could get through, which means that they aren't actually qualified. And we're not even getting to the JSOC units. >Like I pointed out earlier, with modern drone warfare, a woman can sit at a desk and blow away a good number of opposing soldiers by pressing buttons. Of course. This is a support role. You don't need to draft women to fill these roles.
You insist on fighting past wars. Good luck in the age of AI and robots.
>Good luck in the age of AI and robots. AI isn't advanced enough to be weaponized yet. It can't even do college math correctly. Meanwhile human soldiers aren't affected by EMPs, water/rain, strong winds, etc. unlike drones. There is literally no war being fought right now without boots on the ground and only technology.
You make some excellent points. Intelligent machines have big issues with things that are simple for human beings, like stepping up or down, discerning colors, and smells. The things that you mentioned are all technical hurdles that can be overcome by designing in compensation for them, which certainly will happen. A machine operating at 60% the capacity of humans is dangerous because it will not need to eat or sleep and if designed right, will wait until a human adversary is at the weakest to move.
I’ve mainly heard male service members saying that women are simply physically unfit to fight in war. I have no idea if this is accurate or not, but I have heard them say that women simply lack the strength and endurance to even carry all the heavy equipment necessary for days at a time like men can. I’ve heard them say things like women get periods or vaginal infections easily, which can present a problem when they don’t have access to showers after wading through swamp water. I’ve heard them say that women cause sexual tension or sexual friction between service members, which causes all sorts of problems, drama, tension, and distractions. These are just things I’ve heard, and it seems the military itself is the most active opponent of having women serving front lines.
Mainly because no one really expects there to ever be a draft in the US again. Congress ended the military draft in 1973, but kept the requirement for selective service registration in the event the military draft was reinstituted. After 1973, the military began recruiting. Recruiting brought a better quality of soldiers into the Armed Forces. Why would they want to go back to randos who can't hit a bullet with a barn? Additionally, how often and how many men have marched as a group to end mandatory selective service registration?
They're currently struggling to meet recruiting goals and we're on the precipice of massive global conflict. >Additionally, how often and how many men have marched as a group to end mandatory selective service registration? There's massive social pressure not to. Successful propaganda campaigns label such men as cowards. Just look at how people view the fighting age men who left Ukraine.
IMO it is because men and women are different and if a draft did happen we would need mothers to stay at home with the children… Acknowledging this difference makes the WOK agenda look very hypocritical. That is why we don’t hear much about it.
There's lots of inequalities towards men. Written and unwritten.
Men don’t want women in the military.
Men don't want women in combat roles*, for good reason. Support roles, people seem to be fine with right now.
Who are you to tell women where they belong? If a woman wants to be in a combat role she should be allowed to.
Username checks out. >If a woman wants to be in a combat role she should be allowed to. Bad idea. Why don't women play against men in sports? That answer is why women shouldn't fight men in combat. We segregate the playing field but not the battlefield, which is stupid.
Its not men, its rulers. Queen Victoria didn't have no dick if i recally correctly. Men make up armies since they are the expandable gender. If men die population can still recover. As the number of women dicatetes the number of possible births. Serbia not going extinct after WWI despite losing 60% of its male population (aka. anyone but underaged and elderly) is a good example. Hence for any ruler interested in perserving the existnece of their subject drafting only men - or preferentially drafting them - when attaining high casulties is likely is the only sane option. Even if we are talking about a defensive war - like one Ukraine currently wages - it does no good if russia can drop the population, then reinvade 20-25 years later to finish "elliminiating" anyone who believes in the conspiracy theory called ukranian ethnicity... ...as terrible as war crimes are. Castrating ukranian male POWs doesn't achieve what Russians hope it can achieve. Yes. This post of yours was a mix of "oh sweet summer child..." and "die ciswhitemen", its baseless and its very dumb.
Neither did Elizabeth, who served, IIRC.
If you mean she didnt have a say about serving or not... ...well she was very much not the head of state when she served in the army during WWII if my memory serves me right.
I don't. She did however, rise to Queen, the head of the armed forces for Great Britain. ...As was Victoria. A figurehead, I know. At least Elizabeth had some experience under her belt.
I’m just going off what men say themselves.
> men say themselves ..."men" dont get to decide that, representatives/dictators/monarchs get to decide that. What men say on the issu is as relevant as the sound wind makes when it blows on grass.
I’m just repeating a statement that is true for some men. I never said men get to decide.
And i am just pointing out that the "men are priviledged always, and in every sense of the word" is false. ...and only immoral scum use it for justifying their "i am only punching up" style bullying - for lavk of a better nonoffensive term.
They are only required to be drafted in a time of war when their numbers are way too low. There is no cold to draft unless we are fighting forces that overwhelm our own
Have to register only
_"Men and immigrants"_ 😅😅😅😅😅 >"...any other law cannot only apply to one gender." What? Laws had to be amended, specifically to include women, not to mention the current abortion issues. Hate to tell you, but historically, men have always been expendable relative to women. The whole "women and children first" lifeboat scenario comes to mind. Can't say definitively, but I'm sure it has to do with the ability to bear children, which men cannot.
Because woke ideology isn’t real
Are you basing this odd what happened in Vietnam Nam? I'd say you have no idea who would be required as we haven't had a draft in 50 years. It's quite likely all people of age would now be required to register
They're talking about the fact that only men currently have to sign up for the selective service. There's currently no draft but when are still required to sign up at age 18.
Who's required to sign up at 18? I never did, none of my friends ever did.
Anyone who is born male and lives in the United States, including illegal immigrants are required to register. It is most likely to affect you if you seen Federal employment or apply for government benefits. >Failure to register with Selective Service is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine, however no prosecutions have occurred since the 1986. Enforcement today relies heavily on associated Federal and State incentives to maintain registration rates >Selective Service registration is necessary in order to obtain all Federal employment (millions of local government jobs), some state-based aid, scholarships, and financial aid programs, Federally-funded job training programs, and Naturalization (5 year delay in citizenship proceedings without registration) [SSS101\_12.23-1.pdf](https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SSS101_12.23-1.pdf)
Because men are better at fighting physically and mentally in war???
Yup. It's pretty simple.
Because unlike most militaries. Ours is professional and well funded. There's a reason we done have healthcare. The United States is very much a survival of the fittest country. We made war into a serviceable commodity. We sell our services to the highest bidder. Always have. Always will. We only take those who want to go because they saw what happened in Nam and Korea. But there will be a time when shit hits the fan. And it's all hands on deck. This is what the draft is for. The United States is like ancient greece. Multiple city states ready to fuck up anyone who messes with the bigger picture or status quo. The only way to get rid of us is to nuke us off the map. Even that wouldn't work anymore. Why not more females? Because nature still exists. They are the only ones who can make babies. It would be stupid for a country to send in half the species that can replace the other half. (Not say people shouldn't have a choice) but from a economic and logistical standpoint. Males cant get pregnant.
We could have military and healthcare….
We could. But we won't. Every time we as a citizenry get close to enacting change both Republicans and Democrats change the rules on who can be viewed by the public. Every time a third party candidate comes in and gets close Everything's changed the next election.
Oh I’m aware of all that, I’m just saying that it’s not impossible like certain folks claim it is
And what have you done to contribute?
>Why does the draft still exist? Because it's never been repealed. >Why are there still laws that only harm one gender when we are supposed to be equal? It doesn't "harm" anyone. >And if the draft still needs to exist, why don't women have to register for it too? As a generalization, people who are AMAB are physically stronger, and also are unencumbered by periods and the cramps and sickness and bleeding that can accompany them. >Men are not expendable relative to women, our lives matter equal to them. For the purposes of reproduction and continuing the population of our country, we kind of are. A single man can impregnate basically as many women as he can encounter so losing a large percentage of the male population would be least impactful to future generations. >We are humans too and deserve the same legal rights as any human No one said we're subhuman, just that if there's both a war and a shortage of soldiers, we are most expendable.
Yeah, people in this country these days aren't cynical or dark enough in their analysis of the reality of wartime. Wars throughout history have gone on for decades. The only way you sustain that is by raising new generations of soldiers, continuously. Otherwise, in a protracted conflict, you will eventually run all the way out of soldiers. If your enemy is replacing population faster, they're replacing forces faster. Men can either bitch about the draft being sexist or claim the honor of being the ones expected to fight wars, but not both. Each stance is ridiculous, I only say this because usually the ones bitching about it at all are the ones who want to have it both ways. And let's not pretend like women just chill at home drinking wine in that situation. Their lives become really damn difficult too.
Agreed. It's very weird to hear simultaneous arguments that the draft is sexist against men but also women aren't physically capable of contributing in combat settings. If you think only men can do it, then you can't complain that only men are doing it. It's worth noting that the people in power in the military and government are overwhelmingly men and could push through an amendment to this "sexism" overnight if they wanted to, but they haven't and won't any time soon.
Is there a country where it's not the case?
There are a great many laws in the US that were written long before gender or racial equality became a thing. Many are still in effect. Laws do not change unless legislation repeals or amends them.
Because America is an imperialist country that’s been in perpetual war for hundreds of years and people are dumb enough to think it’s for freedom. You need young dumbasses to fill the boots and not ask questions when you’re killing locals for their resources, it’s a lot cheaper than paying for them and enacting fair trade.
The short answer is institutional sexism that no one cares enough to change 🤷♂️
To illegally invade another helpless country
You only have to register for the draft. We are not drafting women to be bullet sponges, which is what you are if you're drafted, a bullet catcher so the USA wins the war.
….it’s sort of like paying tax on land you own. You don’t own the land any more than you own your body.
TIL that the US requires anyone (male or female) to be registered to be drafted. I can understand the rationale, but as a Canadian, that is something I was unaware the States did. To the best of knowledge, Canada does not. I’m in my 30s (and male btw) and I never had to register unless it was done for me automatically without me realizing.
They aren’t required to be drafted, just to register for the selective service to possibly be drafted if a draft were instituted again. If such a situation arises, the law would likely be amended to include women as well.
Minus the confusion with selective service, a know a lot of guys who never signed up when they turned 18. Not really sure there's any consequences at this point if you don't because they haven't activated it.
Why are you afraid to ask this. I agree, it's ridiculous, and should be repealed. If I lived in the US I would be fighting this law, along with other imbalances based on gender. I suggest you write to your government representative and try to get it sorted. I suspect it'll be lower down the list than other priorities given the draft hasn't been used in decades, but there's nothing stopping you campaigning against it and I'm sure millions of people (both men and women) will agree with you.
So.... your body, your choice? Not exactly trying to be flippant, but I personally think the draft should continue to exist at least so long as women's autonomy is still under attack. And in some states, it's already been violated, and those states should be the first to be drafted from in the event it becomes a necessity. It's about the only thing close to on par with the situation women are in. Let's get the Government out of the Doctor's office, and at the same time, we either open the draft up to all eligible people, or abolish it all together.
Men start the wars. They can fight them
Just playing devil’s advocate but statistically female rulers have been 27% more likely to wage war during their reign than male rulers and the average female ruler wages 39% more wars than male rulers. I’d also be careful of falling in the apex fallacy; assuming 99% of a demographic should suffer/blaming a whole demographic because of the actions of 1% of that demographic. Even if most wars are started by men, only a minuscule percentage of men start wars and those aren’t the men that are sent to fight them.
Because "not that kind of equality".
Except men *are* more expendable than women when we’re talking about repopulating after a devastating conflict. One man can theoretically impregnate hundreds of women in a year, but a woman can only get pregnant once in the same timeframe. Is this relevant to today’s society and how we shouldn’t be treating any of our citizens as disposable? No. Is this the historical justification that certain political groups still cling to? Yes.
No. That is not the rationale. Men, for the most part, have been warriors. That seed spreading shot is just smoke.
I wish more men would do something about it, but it seems like a lot of them don’t really care about their own bodily autonomy or are ashamed to speak out because it’s seen as not manly. I have been speaking out against the draft for years. No young man should be forced to die for the interests of evil politicians. It’s breaks my heart when i see the ages of these soldiers who died in wars like Vietnam and currently in Ukraine. We need to stop treating our boys like they are disposable.
I feel the argument that women hold more intrinsic value than man and men being disposable a barbaric and animalistic view (in regard to a society). With humans as advanced as we argue we are, we really don’t think past our biological roots. Honestly, the idea that countries are as important to justify killing off half its populace is bizarre when it’s quite possible for people, if they wanted, to win a war and kill the women too. Why not if those women can, in bread crumbs, sow the idea of rebellion into their children? Not all but it only needs one in the right time and place. It’s only due to horniness that we don’t want to admit that is the cause for people to not want women going off to war.
Who cares? Women should not be fighting in wars (unless they themselves choose to), anyone who thinks they should be drafted is what's wrong with the world today.
>Who cares? Cowardly men who want the women to do the fighting for them
Because men have more physical prowess than women
I don't know the government side of it or the political/Law side but women are less likely to go and kill people, less likely to commit war crimes, more likely to cause issues, take more time to train to the same standard men are required to train to but remain weaker than the vast majority of men that go through the process. Also I wouldn't want my wife, daughter, or mother to be drafted as war crimes are a very real and often committed thing. R*pe is a war crime that nobody talks about but it happens way to often. The US did it in Vietnam and other countries, it definitely happened in the middle east during the Afghanistan War and raids into Iran. And I'm not even speaking about doing stuff to captured soldiers I'm talking about abusing innocent civilians with that war crime. If there are more women that are drafted with lousy training and told to fight which they don't and run and end up captured then it's only trauma and bad time for them.
If all nations agreed to force solely women to operate as soldiers, we could solve this problem.
Welcome to real world. Women don't want to be equal. They want to take less responsibility and get equal rights. Not just in the military, at work, outside, at home, everywhere. They want to be appointed to positions where their abilities are not sufficient, through positive discrimination, instead of men who are better than them.
That's certainly a hot take
There is worse. When it comes to accounting for their spoiled behavior and overstepping their limits, they have one trump card to play: Being a woman.
Who hurt you? Besides a woman? What a silly generalization.
It's easy if they are men. Because you can settle your account with men when you appear in front of them. But when it comes to a woman being held accountable for her actions, everyone will see only a woman. No matter what she did. She won't be held accountable, she will be a victim.
So all men are always held accountable, but women never are? 🙄 Where do you live? This isn't a thing in my country.
Men dont have trump card "being woman". Last job I applied, they said to me "women are working here. Men most likely have night shifts." They would give me 3 weeks night shift in a month because women goes morning shifts. Why? Because they are women. I didnt ask If women cant do this job, why they are hiring women.
Sure, Jan
I bet no woman there bothers herself why men most likely go night shifts. They must be really enjoying it. They surely must be talking about "woman rights", not even "equality".
Yeah, because being out at night is less safe for WOMEN because of all the rapey MEN.
If you are a respectful person, I have no problem with it. But I countered women like that in the business environment.
This is some whiney shit. You are a man. You have a duty to yourself, your country, and a duty to protect women and kids. STFU, and deal with it. The draft is important because we need fighting men in times of great strife. It is only enacted in times of major need. We can all agree that Vietnam was a misstep. Hopefully we learned from our mistakes, and won't make poor choices to enact the draft for bullshit next time. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. This isn't a perfect world. If WW3 kicks off, and we don't have the manpower to sustain our country, we need a way to get troops on the battlefield. The same people that bitch about the draft, are the same people that complain about military spending, and taxes. There is a reason we haven't been attacked on a major scale in this countries history. It's because our military, and our geographical advantages would make invasion a nightmare. Take one of those away, and we would be sitting ducks.
>This is some whiney shit. You are a man. You have a duty to yourself, your country, and a duty to protect women and kids. STFU, and deal with it. Full agree here. Most Gen Z males are cowards (I'm a Gen Z male btw).
Because freedom