Sexism

[vixenesque93]

I'm at home, watching Jarhead with M (well, part of it, he'd started watching it before I got home). At one point while I was washing dishes I said something along the lines of how it was a good thing they hadn't brought back the draft for Desert Storm, or M would've been one of the first kids called up. If they'd brought it back for Afghanistan or Iraq 2.0, I was in the prime age group (and there was talk of drafting women by then).

Which brings me to the problem I have with the Selective Service. The sexism displayed by requiring men, and only men, to register should be appalling to anyone who values equality. The way the law is currently drafted, only "male persons" are required to sign up. Even the Supreme Court decided in 1981 that only requiring men to register did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Are they kidding me? Women fought damned hard for equal rights--and damned if it isn't awesome now that we get the vote and the right to be treated as equals both in the workplace and the home. So why aren't we held to the same standard and forced to register? There are two perfectly viable options here. One, to end the Selective Service. It hasn't been used recently anyways, and gods willing it will not need to be implemented again. The other? Require all American adults to register upon turning 18, not just males.

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So why aren't we held to the same standard and forced to register?

Because there are some nasty stereotypes of what women are like under fire... just like there are stereotypes of what gays would do to a unit under fire...

While combat is a stressful situation, basically we are still battling with the images of what people would do, or endure under combat situations.


One, to end the Selective Service.
Not a viable option -- especially with the military effectively broken by George W Bush. You try to *fix* selective service, but ending it is acutally more harmful than good.


It hasn't been used recently anyways, and gods willing it will not need to be implemented again.

But the fact is that it *CAN* be used, which in a time of emergency the country can fall back on. It would be a mistake to remove a system that does *some* good because it does not do *total* good.


Require all American adults to register upon turning 18, not just males.

I agree with on the this option.

[fearless-son.livejournal.com]

That always bugged me too. The thought that women would be ineffective combatants or would distract men from their duty is only held by those who have never met a female Israeli drill sergeant.

What also bothers me is that even women who join the military voluntarily are not allowed to serve on the front lines (never mind that the idea of "front lines" is itself an outdated concept in modern mobile warfare.) Or allowed to serve on submarines for that matter. I have heard arguments about how unplanned pregnancies would be an issue, but they would not be. When one joins the military one also consents to any medical procedures they decided to subject one to. If that means giving every woman who serves a birth control implant for the duration of service, then that is how it is going to have to be.

Of course, openly gay individuals are not allowed to serve either, and that also pisses me off. Unfortunately, a lot of it just has to do with very old and stupid stereotypes and institutionalized fear of change. Frankly, I think anyone in the military making homophobic or sexist remarks should be subject to a dishonorable discharge for unbecoming conduct. Apply "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to the idea of what Colbert calls ones "sexual orientation-orientation" and "let them stay in the closet that gays have left behind."

[suddenlynaked.livejournal.com]

If you can't throw a war that has everyone wanting to fight, you shouldn't be throwing the war.

There has never been a draft that was applied equally and there never will be. The lessons of Vietnam proved it did nothing but provide meat for the grinder and contributed to the loss of the war on the home front and in the massive increase in fragging incidents.

The "economic draft" is a myth - the volunteer army pretty accurately reflects the economic spectrum and is largely middle class.

What part of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States" provides an exception for compulsary service? The government serves the people, not the other way around.

(I realize the SCOTUS disagrees with me - but they've called it wrong on several occasions.

Countries that have had compulsary universal service are abandoning it, aside from war zones. The Netherlands abandoned it because it slowed down people's careers - better to invest in education and have a more productive populace.

The Selective Service should be abolished as the Orwellian tool that it is. Unfortunately, people who are otherwise "liberal" will support it for all the usual reasons that come down to "it's good for people to mix."

I can think of no greater evil than a forced military service. this is a kind of "equality" that I hope we never acheive - I've read that the new plan expands the age of eligibility to 36, depending on your skill set.

I'd join an army to fight an army that tried to force me to join it. There is no such thing as freedom in any country that has a draft. Including Switzerland.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, people who are otherwise "liberal" will support it for all the usual reasons that come down to "it's good for people to mix."

I dont know who you've talked to -- but most people who support Selective Service do so for
more than "it's good for people to mix". The primary reasoning for Selective Service
is to supplement the military when volunteer numbers are too small.

I agree that the draft has *not* been applied equally up to this point -- but that is something to be fixed, not tossed out altogether.


What part of "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States" provides an exception for compulsary service?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_service

Although the Selective Service System is authorized by the Selective Service Act, some[specify] dispute the constitutionality of the act, claiming the law violates the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution of the U.S. Constitution by providing for military conscription. Opponents of the law contend that the draft constitutes "involuntary servitude", under the amendment, which states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.[26]
This has not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court said in Butler v. Perry:

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[27]
Constitutionalists[specify] have since noted, however, that such "owed duties" also preceded the established fundamental precepts of "inalienable rights" to life and liberty, which would presumably supersede them, and by which the states originally declared the principal basis for their independence from Great Britain in 1776; accordingly, American governments could derive no just power or authority to claim impose duties that interfered with such rights, since otherwise this would provide government with a "loophole" for doing so. Therefore while the court clarified that the draft did not violate the 13th Amendment per se, it failed to address either the 9th Amendment regarding such rights which were retained by the People, despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution; or the 10th Amendment safeguards against the enlargement of federal powers, over those specifically delegated therein.


I can think of no greater evil than a forced military service.
Depends on whether you believe in a "Social Contract", and whether or not you believe citizens have responsibilities
as part of our society.

[suddenlynaked.livejournal.com]

I don't buy a social contract allows anyone to be involuntarily put into a situation of kill or be killed.

The SCOTUS has a fair history of engaging in pretzel logic when it suits the military and rights of corporations.

The problems with equality and the draft will never be solved. The rich kids and Senator's sons will always find a way to be kept out of harms way - and "service" will be another cover to prove their patriotism.

The folks I've spoken to about it buy into the usual reasons - and then throw in the added "benefit" of forcibly being exposed to people that that you normally wouldn't mix with.





Depends on whether you believe in a "Social Contract", and whether or not you believe citizens have responsibilities
as part of our society."

You could also say the draft is a "responsibility" - unless you want to live in a free country.

There has never been a time when the country was in any kind of danger, that American's didn't respond to the call. The problem is that, as in Vietnam, the draft did nothing but provide a larger standing army for US adventurism - with the added insult of turning 18-24 year olds into slaves.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

There has never been a time when the country was in any kind of danger, that American's didn't respond to the call.

World War I and World War II used the draft - even when volunteerism was at a high.

http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/military/ww1/draft-registration/

World War II
http://www.nndb.com/event/807/000140387/

A total of 10,110,104 men were drafted between November 1940 and October 1946, drawing from the pool of men born on or before 1927


The problem is that, as in Vietnam, the draft did nothing but provide a larger standing army for US adventurism - with the added insult of turning 18-24 year olds into slaves.

1. I agree the draft was not fairly applied. No arguments there. However, the same system was used in WWI and WWII.
An misuse of the system doesnt make the system bad -- just the implementation bad.

2. Please don't make comparisons to slavery. REAL slavery exists in the world, even today, and the comparison is off.


I don't buy a social contract allows anyone to be involuntarily put into a situation of kill or be killed.

That's your personal choice then... however, not everyone agrees with your viewpoint.

Historically, minorities have *fought* to be able to fight precisely BECAUSE the social contract allowed them to afterwards own land, receive benefits, pay, and raise their social status.

Furthermore, the OP was NOT complaining about the existence of Selective Service, but rather it was not being applied FAIRLY -- aka "Social Contract".


The problems with equality and the draft will never be solved. The rich kids and Senator's sons will always find a way to be kept out of harms way - and "service" will be another cover to prove their patriotism.

First the argument was getting GENDERS right - men and women being able to fight together. It wont be fair in the immediate future, but it *can* be if people keep pushing for fairness.


Finally,
You could also say the draft is a "responsibility" - unless you want to live in a free country.

Since NOONE has "total freedom" then the question is not about living in a free country, but rather how much you feel you should give to the country that has given you - literally - everything you have.

[suddenlynaked.livejournal.com]

World War I and World War II used the draft - even when volunteerism was at a high.

I'm aware of that. My father was drafted in 1943. They decided that he should service 50 phone lines in the Marine Corps instead of the 300 he was servicing as a civilian.

I'm also alive because the service decided that men with two or more children would be exempted from going Guadalcanal, because they knew what kind of casualties were going to happen.

2. Please don't make comparisons to slavery. REAL slavery exists in the world, even today, and the comparison is off.

What part of "report for duty or go to jail" is anything but involuntary? So we're to be well fed slaves? So we can work our way out of servitude by putting in the time we "owe" the government - really it's corporate masters - our lives? It IS slavery, perhaps the most heinous kind of slavery, since it involves quite a lot of getting ground up into hamburger for someone else's ideals and profit.

Historically, minorities have *fought* to be able to fight precisely BECAUSE the social contract allowed them to afterwards own land, receive benefits, pay, and raise their social status.

So that's the way you think the world *should* be? Only people that go off and kill other people in the name of your big tribe ought to be able to own land receive benefits, pay and social status? Heinlein makes for fun reading but in real life is disregards a few minor details about government by the consent of the governed and the self evidence of everyone's birth right.

Since NOONE has "total freedom" then the question is not about living in a free country, but rather how much you feel you should give to the country that has given you - literally - everything you have.

Sorry, but the country has not given me everything I have. Certainly *we* as country have built the infrastructure to earn what we get, but the country has NOT given me everything I have.

Even if there is no such thing as total freedom, that's no argument for forcing people to go to war, or some other kind of "service." If individual freedom is such a problem, why have any at all?

There is simply no evidence that a draft has ever been implemented fairly, when the root of the problem is that you're forcing people to kill or die.

You can't talk about imposing the draft "equally" when the imposing the draft at all should be an abomination.

I know quite a few people disagree with me - enough that we've killed a lot of people to maintain our system of permanent war. But there are lot of people who agree with me as well.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I can see we will not agree on this issue.

I see where you're coming from - and I don't completely disagree with you. In fact, I agree with you on several of your points.

But we differ on the concept of Social Contract, we differ on what "Slavery" means, and we differ on the role of the citizenry.


Without having common definitions on those points -- useful discussion can't continue. So I hear what you're saying... I disagree with you tremendously... but I hear what you're saying.

[dreams-in-mime.livejournal.com]

From the day I received a letter from my government telling me that I had 30 days to register or I would be prosecuted, I agreed with you. I think we should do deep reform to the selective service, and big part of that should be social and sexual equality. Take out most of the exceptions, unless you are a physically unable to serve, or are a parent of a minor child. If you are a parent of a minor child then they should not be allowed to be drafted unless one able parent remains, regardless of marital status.

The argument is that America has a soft spot for women, it's sad that they are not wrong. The fact is that the cameras were focused on Jessica Lynch as she was rescued in 2003. She was the first rescue in the war. She was a private first class, and a supply clerk... not exactly a tactically sensitive or crucial prisoner, so why risk a rescue?

My guess was that brass found out she was alive and asked "Do I want to be the one who did a risky rescue mission to recover a WOMAN, or do I want to be the one who knowingly let a woman remain a captive?" Then they asked "How over would their career would be if they made the call to let her remain a captive and she showed up on the internet being beheaded." She was rescued 7 days after her capture.

This ties into sexism in America and the military as a whole. I know that each branch of the military has it's own rules about women in service and what they can do. I understand that the Navy is considering opening up many of the careers that are that are not open to women now. Soon women will be able to be fighter pilots and serve on submarines. I understand that they are not really pushing that through with great speed and women will still not be able to serve in all positions, for example they still won't be eligible to be a Seal.

The reality is that America will say "OMG, a women was captured, tortured, and killed!" with a shock that would not be matched if the soldier had been male... for a while. I hope that we never stop feeling each pain our soldiers endure on our behalf, but it cannot be muddied over sex. When the "firsts" are over we will start to mourn female soldiers as SOLDIERS, the sex of the soldier will be less of an issue.

Yeah, we do have to make they selective service laws uniform between the sexes, but the problem goes beyond the selective service. We have to open up all military careers to soldiers of both sexes who meet the standards. The military will adjust as needed, and America will have one entity where Women are treated as true equals, not equals who should not do "X" because they are too delicate.

[flasher702.livejournal.com]

"...unless you are ... a parent of a minor child. If you are a parent of a minor child then they should not be allowed to be drafted unless one able parent remains, regardless of marital status."
See my post below. People have kids for all kinds of reasons... draft dodging would be one of the better ones should your proposed system ever be used. ;)

[matertiamat.livejournal.com]

I suspect we don't draft women for the same reason we aren't drafting for Iraq, even though we are short on manpower. And that is, it would make people think about war, and fighting in wars, and what that means. And that's dangerous to the status quo. We're used to men fighting and dieing and we've learned to ignore it, or say empty supportive things and move on. And think of how often you hear people say "Yeah, but they volunteered". If we make everyone serve, people will start to think about whether the war is worth the lives and sanity of people they love. It could be years before we go numb again - something could change. Too dangerous.

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Many people would--and seeing as there is more than enough need for civil servant jobs, I don't see that as a problem.

[fearless-son.livejournal.com]

That reminds me of my mother's opinion on the subject when I had to sign up with selective service. In her case, it is not an objection she has to enforced government service (which she is fine with,) but rather an objection to the military-industrial complex.

Which is kind of odd of her, considering that my father is ex-navy.

[flasher702.livejournal.com]

You shouldn't call it "sexism" since it only fits a very literal and generic definition of the world. "Gender inequality" would be better as women are not being oppressed by not having to enroll in selective services. But as to why:

1. The feminist movement was also a pacifist movement with it's supporters thinking that everyone should be as docile as women are supposed to be. I think they had it completely backwards and shot themselves and the rest of society in the foot with their silly pacifistic BS but arguing about that is a little off topic. The fact of the matter is that the draft was abhorrent to the women's rights movement and there was no incentive for them to give up one of their few small privileges before gaining more equality elsewhere either.

2. this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment;_ylt=AlmojaMv3xX54BMhev4Rbres0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNidmJwZHFkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE2L3VzX3NvbGRpZXJfbW9tX2RlcGxveW1lbnQEY3BvcwM5BHBvcwM2BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc29sZGllcm1vbXJl ...and of course she couldn't have been bothered to figure that out that logistical problem before she got pregnant. We still haven't managed to separate women's rights and racial equality from breeder's rights... and tons of feminists, including powerful and well educated ones, will go absolutely nuts if you say anything bad about breeding. Again, I think they are very wrong and that breeding actually is a low station, but certainly valuable, station in life that just isn't compatible with a variety of critical, high-productivity jobs but, again, this is beside the point. This excuse would never work for a man based on sexist president (women were forced to do this *for* men so men could go do other more important things and then claim that having done these important things that women weren't allowed to do meant they deserved to be privileged and in power) but also for very functional reasons: you can't have people just quitting their jobs every time someone can't be bothered to keep their genitals under control. It doesn't work. But most women expect to get this special treatment even in the military. Can you imagine the number women who would suddenly get pregnant if they thought they might get drafted and whine that they have to take care of their babies? Wouldn't that be lovely?

So there you have it. There are historical reasons why it wasn't done in the first place. Pragmatic reasons why it couldn't be done now until other things are fixed first. And the people most appropriate to help correct this problem (powerful, well educated, female activists and their supporters) are completely opposed to it (they essentially want women to be allowed to be CEOs and Soldiers but be able to pull out the pacifist breeder card and quit at will with no personal repercussions). Look forward to another 200years of agonizingly slow progress in gender equality.