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]

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.