NEWS
Gender hot topic for draft
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kira Sparks:
- 'Wisconsin Works' gets mixed marks (April 11, 2005)
- Representative introduces TABOR (April 18, 2005)
- House passes energy bill, drilling for oil in arctic refuge (April 25, 2005)
- Budget sparks debate (March 29, 2005)
- Doyle proposes veteran funding (March 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Getting picked in the Lottery may not always be good (September 20, 2001)
- Over time, U.S. sees draft changes (December 7, 2004)
- Possible military draft concerns Madisonians (September 24, 2004)
- Bill to reinstate federal military draft fails in Congress (October 6, 2004)
- Rumors of reinstating the draft continue to circulate (September 23, 2004)
Share This:
by Kira Sparks
Friday, October 8, 2004
This story is second in a three-part series covering aspects of the military draft and the effect on young adults.
As the number of women who voluntarily enlist in the armed services grows, so does the public debate about females and the draft.
The idea of beginning to draft women is an issue sparking debates for several decades. One of the major questions is whether it is an issue of gender discrimination to not require women to register for the selective service.
“If one group is subject to the draft and the other is not subject to the draft, then it is discrimination, but the question is whether it is an acceptable form of discrimination,” Virginia Sapiro, University of Wisconsin associate vice chancellor for teaching and learning, said.
In the past 20 years, more and more attention has been paid to the issue by legislators. In 1980, when President Carter asked Congress to resume mandatory registration for the draft, he also asked them to consider the issue of registering women as well. Congress agreed to reactivate registration but would not agree to register women.
This continued to be an issue over the years, arising from the fact that thousands of women each year voluntarily enlisted. According to About.com, the percentage of women in the U.S. military increased from 1.6 percent in 1973 to 10.8 percent in 1989. When enlisted, however, there are rules about what roles the women can actually fill.
According to the Selective Service System website, the Department of Defense has strict provisions about the role of women in warfare. Even if women were allowed to be drafted, leaders could not assign women to positions that involved close combat. Though there are many arguments that women do not have the same physical capabilities as men, female soldiers in the military are proving themselves worthy in the positions they do have.
“More and more, women are taking part as they are taking part in other aspects of life and they are proving themselves as worthy as men,” Sapiro said.
This interest and proven capability from women brings more and more people to believe women should be required to register for the selective service.
“I think a draft is an inappropriate thing,” Myra Ferree, UW sociology professor, said. “But if you have something like a draft, what would possibly be your reason for saying women don’t belong in it? Because women aren’t fit to be soldiers? Then why do we have them as soldiers?”
According to the website, if the Selective Service System was given enough money and resources, they would be capable of registering and drafting women. It is clearly not a matter of money as much as the problematic question of whether drafting women is the societal “right thing to do. “
“I know my [female] students have said, I don’t want to go fight and I say, you think the guy sitting next to you does?” Ferree said. “If you have a draft there is no reason to say women as a category should not be subject to it.”
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 2:25am):
Either they should draft women along with men or they shouldn't draft anyone at all, that's all I can say. And there is still the question of whether or not a draft is necessary at any given time.
A draft was not necessary for the first Gulf war and it was not necessary for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The only possible justification for a draft is when the US is directly threatened by a large military force. To reinstitute a draft for the purpose of invading a foreign country that is at worst a regional threat would be like using a shotgun to kill a fly.
To those who feel that women or men are discriminated against by the current Selective Service System: a woman can go to the post office and register voluntarily. The post office and Selective Service will accept you registration card without question.
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 7:15am):
Why is there a three part series on something that isn't even going to happen? The draft is just a scare tactic of the left, and it should not be taken seriously, especially with some three part series. The only ones talking about it are Democrats, and far-left ones at that.
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 10:38am):
Look, I'm against the draft for anyone, but don't use scare tactics to try to win votes. I always thought that only Republicans used scare tactics. When the Democrats try the same thing, then no one gets my vote!
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 10:39am):
I think extremist assholes in the far-left and the far-right should be drafted intead. They are so motivated that they ought to make excellent soldiers.
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 10:51am):
I've read surveys where an overwhelming majority of women respondents were against a draft. I hate to start a gender war, but I'd like to hear women be more vocal in their opposition to drafting men. WE have always been the ones who got marched off to war. If you want to ensure that no draft will ever happen then help us out. First they'll draft us and then you, so let's get started, shall we?
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 2:04pm):
The Air Force is currently CUTTING 20,000 military positions. All this talk about a draft is nuts. Volunteers for the military make much better Soldiers, Seamen, Airmen, and Marines so why would we want to force people to serve. I think Vietnam proved how bad an idea that is.
Anonymous (October 8, 2004 @ 3:21pm):
I'm sorry, but gender really isn't a hot topic with regards to the draft. The draft is a dead topic, so any branch thereof seems pretty pointless to me.
Anonymous (October 9, 2004 @ 9:33pm):
I say we need to have lots of all-women battalions to fight the terrorists. Since they're all so afraid of powerful women, or any women for that matter, let the Islamofascists see what they can do against thousands of female soldiers.
Anonymous (October 10, 2004 @ 7:28pm):
Argh. The draft, just like Blue Oyster Cult, is gone; never to return.
David W. Behrens (October 11, 2004 @ 8:54pm):
To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy against intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than a Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that military conscription will again be implemented during the months following the 2004 Presidential Election. The nature of this struggle renders irrelevant the person or party who wins the election.
With very rare exceptions, every male residing in the United States 18 to 26 years of age is required by the Military Selective Service Act to register with the Selective Service System, and thereby subject himself to the possibility of involuntary military service. Yet, with the ongoing War on Islamic Terrorism, the prosecution of which has required the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel, and stretched the National Guard and Reserve to its limit, absolutely no female in the U.S. is required to register. This clear fact of gender discrimination has not been focused upon in public discussions because an active draft has not been in effect since 1973.
The United States Selective Service System offers on its Website a short history of the draft with respect to women. The primary reason given for non-registration of women is a Supreme Court decision, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Simply stated, it says that since all men registered with the Selective Service are considered combat replacements, and since Congress forbids women to go into combat, women should not be registered. Of course, this reasoning is absolutely absurd, since it presupposes that absolutely every male called for involuntary military service will be used exclusively for combat, and conversely that absolutely no male called will be used for the approximately 90% of military jobs which are non-combat related.
Two identical pieces of legislation before the U.S. Congress, H.R.163 and S.89, referred to as Universal National Service Act of 2003, amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of females. Unless exempted, they obligate the performance of a two-year period of national service either in the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that "promotes the national defense," for all United States residents, male and female, between 18 and 26 years of age. Further perusal of this proposal reveals Section 5(d), which authorizes the President "to apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service." This Section clearly permits the President to perpetuate the current double standard and pander to the female voting majority. Because of a Congressional rule exempting females, only males will be placed involuntarily into direct ground combat. Females, although subject to national service, will be spared the dirt and danger that is inherent in facing our country's enemies. Section 5(d) guarantees that virtually all females will return whole and well to enjoy equal civil rights and equal veteran benefits, while those of their male peers who do return will have had a vastly different experience discharging their 'male-only' civil responsibilities.
Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of continuing gender discrimination:
1. Do equal civil rights for females obligate females to equal civil responsibilities? Should the absence of female civil responsibilities vis-à-vis military service commensurately diminish female civil rights? In light of the fact that only males are required by Federal law to serve involuntarily in direct ground combat for up to six years of their lives, and to risk their very existence in that service, to what quantum degree should females' civil rights be diminished? Why is the pretext of a logically flawed Supreme Court decision, and continuing legislative gender discrimination, allowed to exempt the female majority of the population from any possibility of involuntary direct ground combat? .
2. Should female members of the Legislative and Executive branches of government be permitted to vote for war, i.e. to place only males into involuntary direct ground combat, while they and their daughters enjoy gender exemption from such civil responsibility?
3. Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funding be used for all school-based activities, including athletics, in schools that receive any federal funding. Many schools have had to abandon male team sports that earn revenue in excess of their costs and which aid in the preparation of males for the teamwork and organization of military service, in order to provide gender-equal funding for female sports which perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no imperative for females to utilize the skills and strengths learned on the athletic field and in the classroom for the military defense of their country. Should Title IX continue?
4. Finally, to address those arguments, based on strength and speed, against placing females involuntarily into direct ground combat. Gender-norming has been used to affirmatively place females ahead of males into civilian positions requiring physical strength and speed, such as firefighters, police, smoke jumpers, and cadets in service academies. Why not use these same gender-normed standards, which are significantly less rigorous than those minimums required of males for the same occupations, to affirmatively qualify females for involuntary direct ground combat? Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow to perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be affirmatively placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar strength and speed.
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 9:57pm):
khjhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkhjkbn
Anonymous (December 21, 2004 @ 8:30am):
If people including women want to fight, it shouldn't matter if they have to register for a draft or not, the armed service for the last 32 years has been strictly volentary, and has not needed to call a forced service in over 30 years. If you don't want to fight than don't raise a fuss about not being forced to register.
Anonymous (December 21, 2004 @ 8:37am):
terrorist aren't afraid of "powerful women" they just hate the idea, and would probably ignore them as a nusence at first. Later they may actully care, but for now they see women as less than anything they are.
