Here is an issue that has been before Congress for the last 11 months that has not found its way to main stream conversation - requiring women 18 to 25 to register for Selective Service System.
For those who want to know, a provision was added in the early drafts of the annual defense authorization bill this January to require women to register with the Selective Service just like young men of the same age have been required to do for generations. The provision even passed muster in the Senate. Unfortunately conservatives in both chambers objected to the provision when sent back to the House, and it was removed from final legislative draft that was passed last week.
As a little background: Since Jan. 27, 1973, the active draft lotteries that sent our young men into mandatory military service for two years were disbanded in favor of an all volunteer milititary. What has remained since that date is the continued requirement that men ages 18 to 25 be required to register with the Selective Service System just in case there is an need to quickly reactivate an actual draft call in a national/international military emergency.
Interesting to me though is that for all the talk of women's equality in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, women have been exempt from this requirement. Even more interesting is that, in all of the years of the feminist movement, there has yet to be one protest staged by college-age feminists/Women's Studies Majors/SJW's angry about the inequality of being barred from registering. Well, in fact, this is one issue that has never been an equality issue with feminists...at all. Not once have I ever seen a sign with the words "EQUALITY = DRAFT REGISTRATION!".
Now, call me a feminist (if you dare), but why aren't young women required to register? The common reason is that women can't carry heavy stuff and aren't equipped to fight. But even when we had an active draft during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (and pretty much ever single war ever fought), not all men were sent into combat on the front lines. Many were assigned and served honorably in non-combat roles that could easily be and have been voluntarily populated with women too.
What are your thoughts on this?
Oh, as an aside: Not only was the women draft registry requirement dropped from the bill, but now Congress is considering completely dropping the requirement for men as well.
For those who want to know, a provision was added in the early drafts of the annual defense authorization bill this January to require women to register with the Selective Service just like young men of the same age have been required to do for generations. The provision even passed muster in the Senate. Unfortunately conservatives in both chambers objected to the provision when sent back to the House, and it was removed from final legislative draft that was passed last week.
As a little background: Since Jan. 27, 1973, the active draft lotteries that sent our young men into mandatory military service for two years were disbanded in favor of an all volunteer milititary. What has remained since that date is the continued requirement that men ages 18 to 25 be required to register with the Selective Service System just in case there is an need to quickly reactivate an actual draft call in a national/international military emergency.
Interesting to me though is that for all the talk of women's equality in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, women have been exempt from this requirement. Even more interesting is that, in all of the years of the feminist movement, there has yet to be one protest staged by college-age feminists/Women's Studies Majors/SJW's angry about the inequality of being barred from registering. Well, in fact, this is one issue that has never been an equality issue with feminists...at all. Not once have I ever seen a sign with the words "EQUALITY = DRAFT REGISTRATION!".
Now, call me a feminist (if you dare), but why aren't young women required to register? The common reason is that women can't carry heavy stuff and aren't equipped to fight. But even when we had an active draft during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (and pretty much ever single war ever fought), not all men were sent into combat on the front lines. Many were assigned and served honorably in non-combat roles that could easily be and have been voluntarily populated with women too.
What are your thoughts on this?
Oh, as an aside: Not only was the women draft registry requirement dropped from the bill, but now Congress is considering completely dropping the requirement for men as well.
Since the draft is academic and about to die, I don't feel strongly about the issue, but I am fine with women being drafted.
ReplyDeleteAll Americans 18-25 should register for selective service. They may never be called up, but we need a mechanism in place in the event they are needed.
ReplyDeleteI vote no. I get the whole equality thing. "Hey , you wanna be equal in everything else share the hardship too," but I have two daughters and a granndaughter. My daughters are past the age limit anyway, and if my granddaughter wants to grow up and enlist in the service that's fine but to register for the draft? To have that hanging over her head even in the sliiiiiiiiiiiim chance it ever happens. Nope. Count me out.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
I have conflicted feelings about the draft. I was never in the service so it's hypocritical of me to say other people need to be drafted. I did however grow up on a farm and I've done a helluva lot of blue collar work. More on that in a minute.
ReplyDeleteIn addition the all volunteer military works fine as far as I know. Also, I'm a libertarian, so I believe the less government intervention in anybody's life the better. The fact that the government could just yank you up and make you join the military pisses me off.
On the other hand, whenever I watch some snowflake millenial whining about his feelings or needing to take a puppy to class because he didn't get his way I think "draft that fu--er." And if you're a conscientious objector hey that's fine. We'll draft you into our blue collar work national service force. You can spend two years digging ditches and cutting firebreaks and doing heavy blue collar sweaty work that will hopefully make you less of a pussy.
So as you can tell I'm very conflicted. :)
GypsyTyger
Having sons and daughters--all too young to be drafted, but doesn't last long--I can't think of anything to make me more okay with the idea of my boys being drafted over my girls. I can accept it. I can even think of some justifications for it, I don't feel like it's on me to do so.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Bev, that feminism is and has been in a spot for some time where it has to explain why it doesn't either (a) demand selective service for women, or (b) oppose the draft altogether.
As for what my "ideal" solution would be, well, war isn't at all ideal. I can't leave the gate on that one. I do think everyone, regardless of age or gender, should be willing in some capacity to defend their home country should the need arise. I don't know what that looks like as policy other than the 2nd Amendment.
The draft is a funny thing.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, the military hates it. Conscripts are worthless in every army that has them. Most militaries view it as a waste of resources. Conscripts aren't even useful in modern warfare unless you plan to fight a massive ground war.
On the other hand...
Old conservatives want the draft because they recall it fondly from WWII... these weak kids today... uphill in the snow both ways...
Black groups want the draft because they wrongly believe that "minorities do the fighting" and this will force white kids to do the fighting. The reality is that combat arms are 95% white. Blacks go into supply.
Feminists scream about equality and want women in combat, but want women excluded from the draft because they are too delicate.
Liberals hate the draft because it's military blah blah, but they love slave labor so they want a national service plan where everyone is forced to work for liberal causes.
Frankly, I think you register everyone just in case you need them and then you never draft anyone unless things go horribly wrong.
OT: I'm having such a hard time caring about this Oakland thing.
ReplyDelete1. A bunch of narcissistic drug-addicted wannabe arteest types gather for an illegal party.
2. They live and party in a place that is in total violation of common sense safety codes, most likely because they thought it was hip.
3. The "owner" actually had his kids taken away before because of how they lived -- sex parties, drugs, unsafe, unsanitary.
4. Rather than escape, some of these doped-up sheep texted people that they're going to die.
5. Immediately afterward, the "owner" whines on Facebook about the loss of his place. He doesn't give a sh*t about the dead people... his supposed "friends" (if there is such a thing in that world).
6. The owners wife whines that everyone is blaming them. (Keep in mind, these people would blame the owners of any business for anything that happens there, even if done by a random customer.)
7. Today, one of them is blaming "gentrification" (i.e. middle class people looking for homes) for forcing these people to live there. Wow, total bullsh*t. And even if it was true, why not fix the fix code violation? Just because you live in a crappy neighborhood doesn't mean you can't fix it up, assh*les.
8. Now they're shouting down the mayor for "blaming the victims" for talking about the fire code violations.
All told you have a gaggle of narcissists who made a choice they smugly saw as giving them moral superiority over the bourgeoisie middle class -- to live in a cool warehouse. They didn't fix it up, even after being warned repeatedly. When things went wrong, they didn't care that other people got killed. They won't blame themselves for their own failures and instead attack those who point out their culpability. They make a class warfare attack. Honestly, good riddance.
"Frankly, I think you register everyone just in case you need them and then you never draft anyone unless things go horribly wrong."
ReplyDeleteAndrew - I think that is exactly right with one addition. And we require women to register just see how funny the reaction is. ;-)
"But, but, but...HEY! that's not what we meant by "equality"!!! We meant opportunties like our own credit cards so's we can shop 'n clean/corporate non-death trap jobs 'n sports funding 'n edumacation 'n pay'n aborti...er...healthcare, you know stuff we WANT to do, not HAVE to do! NOT ACTUAL FULL EQUALITY, YOU IDIOTS!!"
Andrew - The good news about the "owners" is that they may never have to worry about a place to live ever again. Life in prison awaits. I am shocked at how many of the dead are turning out to be underage.
ReplyDeleteBev, I agree! Register women too and watch feminists freak out.
ReplyDeleteBev, I think manslaughter charges are coming for sure. But that won't stop these people. I guarantee you that the next thing will be a call for "money for the arts" so these wannabes can live in taxpayer maintained housing.
ReplyDeleteOn the underage, it is kind of shocking. But then, they didn't care. If the papers are to be believed, they had their young kids as sex parties.
OT: Wow, it's interesting how everyone is calling Ben Carson a racist/homophobic/islamaphobic/xenophobic ignorant racist bigot. yeah, I used "racist" 2x. Even House Minority Leader Nancy "Let's Pass it to see what's in it" Pelosi is shocked at how "disturbingly unqualified" Carson is to lead Sec't of Housing & Urban Development.
ReplyDeleteLet's see - Nancy Pelosi raised in as a rich, white privilege in a family of career Maryland politicians and never without a public paycheck/pension or rich husband Paul, a who owns/operates a California-based real estate and venture capital investment and consulting firm. In addition, he was the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League.
And Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon who grew up in public housing and urban decay. Hmmmmmm.
GypsyTyger - I am not conflicted because registering for the Selective Service is only symbolic as this point and to keep it alive just in case the gov't needs to have a ready list. We have not used it or needed it in nearly 50 years. And as Andrew points out, our military is run on technology, not on foot soldiers and that requires real training and skill. Not cannon fodder.
ReplyDeleteAnd as we saw post 9/11/2001 there was not dirth of those willing to sign up during a real crisis for the military.
Bev - Good points.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
I had a draft number of 13 which prompted me to join the Air Force...I didn't want to play Army and camp out a lot, which is exactly how living in that old farm house was anyway. In the modern world we will not have time to raise an army and train them. Get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteObviously I don't have a dog in this race but I want to share my Cdn .02 cents. (that's roughly about a penny on exchange JK)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as an old boomer I have always felt that dropping the draft was a major mistake. (I do agree that women should be made to register) I believe that 95% of the young men today would be better off spending 2 years in the army than in any Ivy league college you can name. I agree that it may not be causal ( more a corollary) that men have lost more standing in life since they lost that one shared experience that bonded men into a cohesive unit in the army. I'm afraid that the time lost to feminist ideology can no longer be regained and you are now stuck with your snowflakes. (just think what a good sgt. major could do with those whiners LoL)
regarding the fire: my first thought was that the victims would have screamed victim-hood if anyone had impose the building/fire code regulations.. within 2 days I saw an article claimg just that.
BTW isn't this the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbour?
ReplyDelete