Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Girls Gone Wild Killed
Via Drudge comes this ominous sign of Barack Obama's taste for forcing "service" down the throats of United States citizens:
During a CNN/YouTube debate for Democratic presidential candidates last year, [Obama] said he doesn't "agree" with the draft.
But he did say women should be expected to register with the Selective Service, comparing the role of women to black soldiers and airmen who served during World War II, when the armed forces were still segregated.
"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal.
"And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."
Because nothing says "equality" like equivalent servitude, and nothing says "selective" like government coercion to sign up as possible cannon fodder under the threat of federal punishment.
reason on "Selective" Service here.
Derrick|10.13.08 @ 11:13AM|#
I hate the draft (er, Selective Service) as much as any libertarian, but I happen to agree that if it's going to exist, it should be gender-neutral.
Matt Welch|10.13.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Nope. Doubling the population affected by a heinous policy is no way to make that policy any less heinous.
tarran|10.13.08 @ 11:16AM|#
jorgen,
The proper response to the fact that only blacks were eligible for
slavery is not to say that we should make white people eligible for
it too.
New World Dan|10.13.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Do you disagree that Male and female draft obligations
should be equal?
I certainly agree that their conscription obligations should be the
same. But they should get there by ending selective service.
(there's a euphamism for you!)
New World Dan|10.13.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Matt,
The upside to having women register for the draft is it would
create even greater resistance to actually implementing one. That's
about as much spin as I can put on it.
Bingo|10.13.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Isn't there some sort of scientific consensus that the quickest way to repopulate after a war is by having as many females available as possible?
|10.13.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I hate the draft (er, Selective Service) as much as any
libertarian, but I happen to agree that if it's going to exist, it
should be gender-neutral.
I'm ambivilent about selective service registration, but certainly
if we are going to have it, everybody should have to play.
Should a draft ever again (Odin forbid) occur, gender is not the
only reason presently used to excuse people from serving that I
would strike.
I'm looking at you, college students. You too clergy members.
|10.13.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Hmmm, I'm certainly anti-draft. I also think the requirement to register should be dropped for men. But insofar as it exists, it should apply equally to the genders. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with what Obama said.
the innominate one|10.13.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Ideally, the draft wouldn't exist (in fact, doesn't exist in the
US at this moment), but registration should be sex-neutral.
Obama's position seems the equivalent of the reasonistas who say
marriage shouldn't be a state function or include state privileges,
but as long as it is, equal protection should preclude the
exclusion of homosexuals from it.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 11:38AM|#
But insofar as it exists, it should apply equally to the
genders. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with what Obama
said.
Fine, but it doesn't seem like Obama's sole point here is
establishing gender equality.
"I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters
that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys
do."
This to me says that Obama thinks that it's a good thing for girls
to register not only because of fairness, but because it will
remind them that they belong to the state.
|10.13.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Doubling the population affected by a heinous policy is no
way to make that policy any less heinous
No, but it makes it more likely that it will be massively unpopular
and opposed. If you taxed every single person in the country at 50%
tomorrow, that shit would end right quick.
|10.13.08 @ 11:41AM|#
"...and they helped to underscore that we're equal."
While we may be equal we are certainly not the same... Men, in
general, are much better at combat than women. While it may be
fair, I'm not sure this is a good idea.
It wasn't too long ago that the idea of women in military service
was not well received... times have certainly changed.
Hogan|10.13.08 @ 11:45AM|#
I agree that the draft is awful policy but I don't necessarily
think that it needs to be gender neutral. I don't think we can just
declare by fiat that all men and women were created equally capable
of handling some extreme shit. Men and women don't respond to
emotional stress in comparable ways.
I guess the Israelis have a gender-neutral draft (or at least a
largely neutral one), and maybe their experience suggests
otherwise; I don't know enough about it.
Ravac|10.13.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Agree with Fluffy.
"[O]bligations to this great country..." is the entire point.
You were lucky enough to be born here, so you will serve.
|10.13.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Should a draft ever again (Odin forbid) occur, gender is not
the only reason presently used to excuse people from serving that I
would strike.
I'm looking at you, college students. You too clergy
members.
When I was in the Illinois National Guard, we were told that if the
draft were reinstated, the Vietnam style exempations would no
longer be present and that everyone would be elligible for the
draft. It may or may not be true, but it seems reasonable given how
unpopular the exemptions were.
|10.13.08 @ 12:07PM|#
I think the prospect of a draft is highly unlikely.
The days of huge armies of conscripts is over.
Alan Vanneman|10.13.08 @ 12:09PM|#
The draft ended slavery and defeated Hitler. But draft haters
like Matt don't need to worry. The draft just isn't going to
happen, unless we decide to invade China or India, and we
won't.
Any suggestion to revive the draft would require a "gender-neutral"
policy, but, again, it won't happen. Why? Because a real draft
would produce a huge army, like 30 million strong, which would be
too goddamn expensive. We don't anything approaching the size of an
old-fashioned mass army.
A selective draft, taking 5% or less of those eligible, would be
ridiculously "unfair." We would have to pay those unlucky enough to
be drafted twice what we're paying our volunteer army.
Other factors that make a draft unlikely: Moms, always a problem,
don't produce cannon fodder like they used to. To be blunt about
it, if you've got four or five kids, losing one is terrible, but
not the end of the world. When you've got one or two, it is the end
of the world.
And, for the record, I "volunteered" for the U.S. Army back in
1968. Getting up at 3:30 AM to clean out garbage cans, grease
traps, and latrines, with the added bonus of getting screamed at by
obsessive-compulsive high-school dropouts! I'm sorry, Matt, but you
missed a hell of a party.
|10.13.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Matt Welch | October 13, 2008, 11:16am | #
Nope. Doubling the population affected by a heinous policy is no
way to make that policy any less heinous.
This is what the anti-gay people claim about gay marriage, when
they want to appeal to libertarians.
Equlity under the law. The draft. Two different issues.
|10.13.08 @ 12:09PM|#
I must of missed that one while I was distracted by Drudge's "Obama is going door to door kissing all the white women" story.
Matt Welch|10.13.08 @ 12:10PM|#
No, but it makes it more likely that it will be massively
unpopular and opposed. If you taxed every single person in the
country at 50% tomorrow, that shit would end right
quick.
This recalls the lefty case for reinstating the military draft. If
only *everyone* had to serve & be killed, then we could turn
the public tide decisively against the war!
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't see
their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates.
|10.13.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Draft registration presupposes more war just as a Social Security number presupposes you'll pay FICA taxes. Neither war or SS presupposes you'll have a chance to enjoy your life.
|10.13.08 @ 12:13PM|#
I'm ambivilent about selective service registration, but
certainly if we are going to have it, everybody should have to
play.
Should a draft ever again (Odin forbid) occur, gender is not the
only reason presently used to excuse people from serving that I
would strike.
I'm looking at you, college students. You too clergy
members.
Hey, everybody means everybody, and fair is fair. Step up, senior
citizens, unless you've already served. Nursing mothers, severely
disabled, conscientious objectors, pack your bags. And when we
threw out that educational exemption, we meant it. Students can be
processed right in their middle-school classrooms. This is the new
Army!
Neu Mejican|10.13.08 @ 12:14PM|#
joe,
Me neither.
But if we are gonna have it, everyone should register...and then
get a gps chip so we can track them down when we need them.
;^)
|10.13.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I don't understand why we still have selective service
registration.
Joe, I would say it is due to government inertia.
It takes a lot to kill a government agency, even when it is obvious
that the services of the agency are no longer needed.
IIRC, it was reinstated late in Jimmy Carter's presidency when the
Soviets were on the move seemingly everywhere around the globe and
war with the Soviet Union in the near to mid term seemed somewhat
likely.
Now, if some politician were to propose the elimination of the
Selective Serice, is political rivals would accuse him of being
'Soft on Defense' IMHO.
Citizen Nothing|10.13.08 @ 12:21PM|#
joe, tell Paul Jacob the program doesn't do anything.
http://www.draftresistance.org/herotoday.php
T|10.13.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Sure. Why not? I've always felt that if we included women in the
Selective Service, it'd make it that much more unlikely a draft
would reinstated. It's an entirely different animal when you're
gonna take daddy's little girl off to war.
But then, I never registered for the Selective Service, so what do
I know?
|10.13.08 @ 12:22PM|#
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't
see their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates.
It's a utilitarian argument, Matt. I share your revulsion at people
being owned by the state, but this would be a good way to end it. I
am not promoting it--I am saying that I think if the government
does this, it will have different results than they think. Positive
(from our perspective) results.
Matt Welch|10.13.08 @ 12:24PM|#
draft haters like Matt don't need to worry. The draft just
isn't going to happen
Probably not, though I'm done assuming the best case scenario when
it comes to Washington.
Matt, you seem awfully worked up about a program that doesn't
do anything.
Sure, it doesn't do anything to those who comply. To those
who don't (like me) it threatens you constantly between ages 18 and
25 with jail time and other specific sanctions.
the innominate one|10.13.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Hogan-
drafting women doesn't necessarily mean they'll be in front-line
combat positions. In fact, since the military is pretty good at
sorting people according to their abilities, most won't be. Many
women could serve in support positions and free up men for combat
positions.
|10.13.08 @ 12:28PM|#
With today's armed forces being much more hi tech, it would
stand to reason that the better educated would be at the top of the
list to get drafted. Physical fitness should factor in as he next
qualifier. This would leave the obese and ignorant lower class with
the least burden.
As a pure equality issue, women should be there same as the men,
but the whole babymamma thing has to be dealt with.
|10.13.08 @ 12:31PM|#
women shouldn't be elligible for a draft for the same reason men
have always fought wars while women stayed at home
A few men adn a large number of women are capable of quickly
repopulating a society following even teh worst wars...if suddenly
there are many fewer women as well, then it becomes a much slower
climb
-|10.13.08 @ 12:32PM|#
No way in hell would I let that lying bastard take my daughter
and do with her as he thinks the state should please. I'd go to
jail before I allowed that.
McCain may be a dumb ass, but this guy is a complete psychotic
sociopath.
zoltan|10.13.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Men, in general, are much better at combat than
women.
Yes, and this has even been verified since women are allowed to
show how good/bad they are at combat!
|10.13.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
OK. Paul Jacobs, Selective Service registration is completely
meaningless. You are wasting your life over nothing. Of course it's
stupid to have to register for something that doesn't exist. It's a
lot more stupid to make a big stink at great cost to yourself over
something that doesn't exist.
Happy?
|10.13.08 @ 12:34PM|#
For those talking about women in combat, isn't the majority of the military (or close to it) in combat support roles? The draft sucks, but either get rid of it entirely or make everyone subject to it.
zoltan|10.13.08 @ 12:34PM|#
No way in hell would I let that lying bastard take my
daughter and do with her as he thinks the state should please. I'd
go to jail before I allowed that.
But you're okay with him doing that to your son?
women shouldn't be elligible for a draft for the same reason
men have always fought wars while women stayed at home
A few men adn a large number of women are capable of quickly
repopulating a society following even teh worst wars...if suddenly
there are many fewer women as well, then it becomes a much slower
climb
Yeah, I would be happy with more social conditioning by the federal
government. March on, libertarians.
Joel|10.13.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Alan Vanneman | October 13, 2008, 12:09pm | #
The draft ended slavery...
The ocean ended water? The atmosphere ended air?
Friend, the draft is slavery.
As long as the selective service and the "obligation" to register
exists, the draft may be sleeping but it is by no means dead. We
were all raised with Social Studies lectures that intoned how the
U.S. government (however belatedly) did away with slavery. Not so -
it just expanded the opportunity. Now with this talk of drafting
women, it seems the gov wants to do it again.
zoltan|10.13.08 @ 12:41PM|#
McCain may be a dumb ass, but this guy is a complete
psychotic sociopath.
So one wants to reinstate the draft (oh, uh, I mean, he changed his
mind) and one wants women to have to register for it. Sounds like
two sides of the same sociopathic, statist coin.
|10.13.08 @ 12:49PM|#
I seem to remember Obama talking about expanding the peace corps. I have to wonder if part of his thinking on rebuilding America is pressing our young folks, both boys and girls, into a 2-4 year national service program. Those that want, can go military service. Those others, too unpatriotic for real service, can go into a peace corps or some other make work nation building government employment.
Hogan|10.13.08 @ 12:50PM|#
innominate -
yeah I figured that women would still largely be kept in support
positions, which is what Obama seemed to be talking about, but I
don't know that that counts as complete gender neutrality. I think
he admits as much by mentioning it in connection with black roles
in WWII. I think Israel does have some gender-integrated combat
units, though I trust the women in them have been thoroughly vetted
on merit.
I've never served so I don't know enough about how members are
sorted. I'm sure ability-differentials between genders would be
accounted for by meritocratic sorting practices, but I think
there's also a "how acceptable is it to expose this individual to
violence"-differential between genders, especially when the
individuals aren't participating electively, and I don't know how
that would be accounted for. Probably just chauvinism on my part,
though.
Kolohe|10.13.08 @ 1:15PM|#
my 2.4e-5 troy oz of gold-
The selective service if it exists should apply equally to both
genders.
The selective service is an anachronism and should be
abolished.
The day after any draft is instated, I resign my commission.
|10.13.08 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm ambivilent about selective service registration, but
certainly if we are going to have it, everybody should have to
play.
I'm not the least bit ambivalent about Selective Servitude -- this
is one government program that should be eliminated with extreme
prejudice, the bureaucrats fired, the buildings razed and burned,
and salt sowed in the smoking ashes while the cameras roll and
passionate speeches punctuate the air decrying that never again
will such an injustice be inflicted upon a free people.
And it illustrates the essential hypocrisy and surrealism of
national politics that an obviously intelligent person like Obama
would feel it would get him votes to propose doubling the size and
cost of a government program that makes it much easier to quickly
resurrect a policy he claims to oppose.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 1:24PM|#
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't
see their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates.
I'm not sticking up for Obama [because I don't think this is the
argument he was making] but if we're going to have bad laws, the
worst thing we can do is exempt certain favored populations from
them to soften the blow. Bad laws must be carried out to the
letter, without exceptions, to show that they are bad laws.
In fact, one of the best things libertarians can do is try to find
ways to take the most repulsive areas of the law and subject the
greatest possible number of people to them. It would actually be a
really, really, really GOOD thing [for just one example] if lots
more affluent white people were subject to no-knock raids where
their pets were slaughtered and their kids were maced and tasered
and their property was ransacked and destroyed. That would be
fucking great. I'll take my turn if the rest of fucking white bread
America gets their turn too.
It is precisely the fact that the worst excesses of our laws are
visited only on powerless and invisible people that allows our
statist system to lumber along.
Hogan|10.13.08 @ 1:31PM|#
In fact, one of the best things libertarians can do is try
to find ways to take the most repulsive areas of the law and
subject the greatest possible number of people to them. It would
actually be a really, really, really GOOD thing [for just one
example] if lots more affluent white people were subject to
no-knock raids where their pets were slaughtered and their kids
were maced and tasered and their property was ransacked and
destroyed. That would be fucking great. I'll take my turn if the
rest of fucking white bread America gets their turn too.
It is precisely the fact that the worst excesses of our laws are
visited only on powerless and invisible people that allows our
statist system to lumber along.
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't see
their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates.
|10.13.08 @ 1:31PM|#
I'd say the best way to achieve legal equality in this regard is
to abolish mandatory registration for the selective service. Also,
I'm certainly opposed to any new draft.
Of course we're not likely to have a draft, so one could argue that
it doesn't make that much difference in practice whether we have
registration or whether women are required to register.
JD|10.13.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Nobody picked up on this?
"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve
in
combat," Mr. Obama said.
Buh? African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat? WhenTF
was that? Black soldiers have served in every single war the US has
had, near as I can tell. (After all, the government doesn't have to
recognize your rights to insist on your obligations.) If McCain
said something like that, I suspect people would be jumping down
his throat for not recognizing Black Americans' contribution or
some such.
|10.13.08 @ 1:32PM|#
The draft sucks, but either get rid of it entirely or make
everyone subject to it.
Try substituting the word "rape" for "the draft", and see if this
type of logic makes sense. Or "midnight drug raids by jackbooted
thugs". Or "exorbitant, confiscatory tax levels". Or "slavery", if
you want a more exact approximation.
The libertarian POV here isn't particularly hard to figure out,
folks.
|10.13.08 @ 1:43PM|#
In fact, one of the best things libertarians can do is try
to find ways to take the most repulsive areas of the law and
subject the greatest possible number of people to them. It would
actually be a really, really, really GOOD thing [for just one
example] if lots more affluent white people were subject to
no-knock raids where their pets were slaughtered and their
kids were maced and tasered and their property was ransacked and
destroyed. That would be fucking great. I'll take my turn
if the rest of fucking white bread America gets their turn
too.
Emphasis added.
I don't know about "fucking great". Maybe you mean "a temporary
necessary evil that would soon result in unjust laws/policies being
ended". Or maybe this is parody/spoofing/whatever.
At any rate, I agree with the goal of ending unjust laws/policies,
but I don't think tat what you describe is the only way, or the
best way, to do it. There are plenty of other injustices that have
been ended even though most people were never subject to them.
|10.13.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Buh? African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat?
WhenTF was that?
I believe Mr. Obama was referring to WWII were blacks were
segregated into mainly support units, not front line combat units.
I'm guessing he is exagerating a little bit.
|10.13.08 @ 1:50PM|#
I think Israel does have some gender-integrated combat
units
The wikipedia article on the IDF says women are not allowed in
combat units.
Israel did have women in infantry units when the nation was formed,
but the experience they had with mixed gender units were very
negative (the men were more concerened with protecting the women
than with following orders and completing the mission).
tarran|10.13.08 @ 1:55PM|#
JD,
In world War II the military had a rule against African Americans
serving in combat. It wasn't absolute: stewards on Navy ships, for
example, went wherever their ships did. Additionally, when the war
was going badly, black soldiers sis find themselves fighting as
supply bases were attacked. The Tuskegee airmen, as far as I know,
where the only black unit deployed into combat - with the intention
that they would fight actively (ie pull triggers on guns that went
bang).
In his diary, Patton comments on inspecting a Negro unit and
telling them that their race were worthless as soldiers. Took a
great deal of pleasure in it, as I remember.
This is not to say that black men did not serve in uniform. They
did. Mostly they were put in units that were given unglamorous
jobs. The units that loaded ammunition onto supply ships were all
black. My wife's grandfather was a labourer on the Alaska
highway.
So the spirit of what Obama was saying is correct: there was a view
that blacks were not worthy of fighting for their country. His
solution, though, is straight out of that Vonnegut story about the
Handicapper General.
Hogan|10.13.08 @ 1:59PM|#
The wikipedia article on the IDF says women are not allowed
in combat units.
Israel did have women in infantry units when the nation was formed,
but the experience they had with mixed gender units were very
negative (the men were more concerened with protecting the women
than with following orders and completing the mission).
Hmm... via wikipedia:
"As of 2005, women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in
the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines),
and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women."
"450 women currently serve in combat units of Israel's security
forces, primarily in the Border Police."
"Women serve in combat support and light combat roles in the
Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few
platoons, named Karakal, were formed, in which men and women serve
together in light infantry on the borders with Egypt and Jordan.
Karakal became a brigade in 2004."
zoltan|10.13.08 @ 2:16PM|#
the men were more concerened with protecting the women than
with following orders and completing the mission
Was that the only negative, UK? That's not exactly a blemish on
women serving in combat.
|10.13.08 @ 2:27PM|#
The Tuskegee airmen, as far as I know, where the only black
unit deployed into combat - with the intention that they would
fight actively (ie pull triggers on guns that went
bang).
There was an all-black Army armored brigade that fought in
Europe.
There was also a black horse cavalry unit that was tasked with
patrolling the border between Morocco and Spanish North Africa
after Patton's landings, in case Franco decided to join the war
after all.
|10.13.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Nope. Doubling the population affected by a heinous policy
is no way to make that policy any less heinous.
This is a much better article then the runt one.
What does McCain think on selective service?
D.A. Ridgely|10.13.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Doubling the population affected by a heinous policy is no
way to make that policy any less heinous.
That depends on the reason or reasons why the policy is heinous.
Sure, conscription is heinous by virtue of being involuntary
servitude and a far better solution would be its complete
elimination, but it is also heinous in its discriminatory
application. Opposing a sexually discriminatory policy is
meritorious even if, as in this case, doing so fails to address the
greater problem.
|10.13.08 @ 2:53PM|#
I don't understand why we still have selective service
registration.
Really joe?
|10.13.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Vernon Baker is a black soldier from WW2 that fought in Italy. He was awarded the CMH for his actions. He was a good friend and a neighbor of ours up the Benewah valley outside St. Maries Idaho in the 90s. He is a beautiful man and a credit to humanity.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 3:22PM|#
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't
see their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates.
It's a hideous argument, at least for those of us who don't see
their fellow humans as pawns of ideological debates care about
justice anyway.
There, I fixed that for you.
There are actually two injustices in every application of our drug
laws. The first injustice is that the state has no moral authority
to establish categories of contraband, but has claimed the power to
do so anyway, and is unjustly exercising that power against some
hapless individual. But the second injustice is that these
unjust laws are only actually applied to the poor or dark-skinned,
that they aren't applied to the white or affluent or connected in
the same ways, and that advocates of these laws openly admit [via
their statements about their broken-window theories] that these
laws are intended in part to be weapons to give police the excuse
to drag poor or minority males off the streets.
In other words, our drug laws are unjust on their face, but they
are made doubly unjust when they're applied to residents of the
inner city but not to Cindy McCain.
That means that you're fighting injustice if you work to get rid of
the drug laws - but you're ALSO fighting injustice if you somehow
can contrive it to get Cindy McCain convicted and dragged off to
prison in chains.
|10.13.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Was that the only negative, UK? That's not exactly a blemish
on women serving in combat.
Zoltan, I believe I am not being descriptive enough.
The IDF's experience with integrated combat units was pretty bad.
For instance, your unit is going out on patrol. Instead of
concentrating on your role in the mission, you are preoccupied with
protecting the women in your unit. Another example I read was if a
female member of the unit was wounded/caputered, the remaining
males would go to nearly suicidal lengths to rescue her.
This experience could be a product of the times (1948ish).
Kolohe|10.13.08 @ 3:40PM|#
I don't understand why we still have selective service registration.
Really joe?
I'm in the frickin military and I don't understand why we still
have selective service registration.
It would have been useless for Gulf War I & Kosovo, and would
have added to the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Matt Welch|10.13.08 @ 3:40PM|#
you're ALSO fighting injustice if you somehow can contrive
it to get Cindy McCain convicted and dragged off to prison in
chains.
I prefer to eat my omelettes without the broken eggs.
Mad Max|10.13.08 @ 3:41PM|#
According to the article, some right-wing extremist hardliners
have expressed skepticism about the brave new world of unisex
military service:
"Elaine Donnelly, a former member of President Bill Clinton's
Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces,
dismissed Mr. Obama's comparison of the roles of women and black
soldiers, arguing that males and females, in general, aren't equal
on the battlefield.
'There are differences between men and women where physical
strength is an issue," said Ms. Donnelly, who heads the nonpartisan
Center for Military Readiness. 'There are a lot of civilian
feminists who are making unreasonable demands on the
military.'"
Kolohe|10.13.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Just to add to my last post.
Although wars can go on for years, I'm fairly confident that 'major
combat operations' will never be more than about 90 days from start
to finish ever again.
Kolohe|10.13.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Max-
Just for context, that's been Donnelly's hobbyhorse for nearly
twenty five years now. She got appointed to DACOWITZ during
Reagan's and Cap Weinberger's tenure with her mind made up, and has
spent a quarter century in confirmation bias.
(Note: she might well be right; but she has never been an honest
broker on the issue. I don't expect a Feynmanian level
of intellectual integrity, but a little consideration of an
alternate hypothesis once in a while would be nice)
Robert|10.13.08 @ 3:53PM|#
if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country
An obligation to register, but not to serve? That's the only way I
can make sense of favoring registration as an obligation, but
opposing a draft.
cunnivore|10.13.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Libertarians oppose drug possession laws, generally speaking.
Does that mean that they should oppose enforcing those laws against
cops, because it enlarges the population subject to bad laws?
joe is right on. You're using the same logic that libertarian gay
marriage opponents sometimes do: state involvement in heterosexual
relationships is bad, so expanding state involvement to homosexual
ones is worse.
Hogan|10.13.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Should we eliminate age ranges for the draft? Sure it's unjust for a 22 year old male to be dragooned into service, but it's doubleplusunjust or something when we exempt 75 year old women and mentally retarded 15 year olds. Maybe not for combat, but I'm sure the military'll find a use for em. By no means should biological differences between humans be used to exempt this or that group from a horrible abuse that we deplore.
Matt Welch|10.13.08 @ 4:32PM|#
You're using the same logic that libertarian gay marriage
opponents sometimes do
You do recognize the difference between expanding someone's legally
recognized choices and restricting them, right? It's kind of
important.
|10.13.08 @ 5:42PM|#
This is forced conscription we are talking about.
Where is the outrage?
Anyway I appreciate Matt keeping the faith on this one.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 5:45PM|#
You do recognize the difference between expanding someone's
legally recognized choices and restricting them, right? It's kind
of important.
Matt, by your logic, a law bringing back the draft but only
applying it to blacks would be better than a law bringing back the
draft and applying it to both blacks and whites, because the latter
injustice would be applied to more people.
You can't just count noses like that. You have to consider the
disparate treatment as an injustice in and of itself, on top of and
added to the injustice of the underlying law.
cunnivore|10.13.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Matt, if women were eligible for the draft, only half as many men would be drafted. So you're not really increasing the number who would be conscripted.
Mad Max|10.13.08 @ 5:56PM|#
kolohe,
Thank you for the link to the Feynman speech from 1974. The famous
physicist talked about how scientists (including "social
scientists") used their authority to intimadate "lay" people
(telling phrase) into going along with schemes which actually were
based on pseudoscientific superstition:
"And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated
by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do 'the right
thing,' according to the experts."
Feynman sounds like some kind of populist with his talk of
"ordinary people with commonsense ideas" versus bogus "experts."
And the examples he cites! The anti-phonics fad was sweeping
education back then, while teachers using the superior phonics
method were derided as reactionaries.
Hmmm . . . are there any modern parallels? Like, for instance, the
pseudosciene in favor of a unisex armed forces and conscription of
women? Do the advocates of such policies actually believe
themselves to be scientific, or do they seek to use their will to
power to make their dreams into reality?
I wonder what Feynman's "ordinary people with commonsense ideas"
would think about drafting women - excuse me, I mean registering
them for a nonexistent and nondangerous draft?
After all, when the British Parliament repealed an obnoxious tax
measure and passed a Declaratory Act announcing its competence to
legislate for the American colonies, the Founding Fathers naturally
shrugged and said, "who care? It's only a theoretical danger - no
use fussing about it."
|10.13.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I'm looking at you, college students. You too clergy
members.
College students have already lost their ticket out. You can finish
your current semester/quarter, but after that you're in. And clergy
always have been subject, unless they could demonstrate pacifism.
They just don't wind up fighting in combat units because they're
more valuable as Chaplains.
Mad Max|10.13.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Shem,
According to the 1948
Military Selective Service Act:
(1) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, as defined in
this title, shall be exempt from training and service, but not from
registration, under this title.
(2) Students preparing for the ministry under the direction of
recognized churches or religious organizations, who are
satisfactorily pursuing full-time courses of instruction in
recognized theological or divinity schools, or who are
satisfactorily pursuing full-time courses of instruction leading to
their entrance into recognized theological or divinity schools in
which they have been preenrolled, shall be deferred from training
and service, but not from registration, under this title. Persons
who are or may be deferred under the provisions of this subsection
shall remain liable for training and service in the Armed Forces
under the provisions of section 4(a) of this Act [section 454 (a)
of this Appendix] until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the date of
their birth. The foregoing sentence shall not be construed to
prevent the exemption or continued deferment of such persons if
otherwise exempted or deferrable under any other provision of this
Act.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Like, for instance, the pseudosciene in favor of a unisex
armed forces and conscription of women? Do the advocates of such
policies actually believe themselves to be scientific
Who said anything about science?
It's not a scientific question.
Let's leave to one side for a moment the question of whether the
draft is slavery, or whether the draft is unjust. I think both are
true, but obviously this opinion is not universal. So I won't argue
from these points.
Even if you think the draft isn't slavery and even if you think the
draft isn't unjust, there simply can be no dispute that the draft
is an imposition by government upon its citizens; by its
very nature, the draft requires citizens to render a service they
would not voluntarily render. And if that's the case, how can you
justify imposing that burden on some citizens and not on
others?
If some women aren't physically fit for combat, draft them and then
rate them 4-F.
Having a draft that applies only to men and not to women is like
having a tax that applies only to men and not to women - or having
a literacy test for voting that applies only to blacks and not to
whites.
cunnivore|10.13.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Mad Max, this isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of
equality before the law. Science can inform our judgement on such
matters but it cannot make those judgements for us.
It wasn't too long ago that "common sense" dictated that women were
too emotional and frail to vote, serve on juries, run a business,
handle property, let alone hold public office. In short, common
sense ain't so infallible either, as it incorporates all the
prejudices that the beholder has grown up with.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Maybe this isn't the right way to argue with Maxie though - I have a sneaking suspicion that he'd happily go back to not allowing women to vote, if he thought it would bring divorce rates down or some such crap.
|10.13.08 @ 6:42PM|#
This is forced conscription we are talking about.
That's the thing: no, it's not. There is no draft, and there will
never again be a draft. Even as Barack Obama said he wanted
selective service registration to be gender-neutral, he denounced
the draft.
Trust me, there's plenty of outrage about the draft. When John
McCain said it would be nice to have a draft, but it wasn't
politically feasible, there was a great deal of outrage.
When Barack Obama says he's opposed to forced conscription, but
wants to make some point about something something by making
Selective Service paperwork universal, it's a little tougher to get
worked up.
cunnivore|10.13.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Though it is funny to see the cosmotarians of the thread doing
the mental gymnastics necessary to simultaneously believe that (1)
women are equal to men in every respect and are capable of doing
anything a man can, and (2) it's preferable to draft only men
rather than drafting women as well.
It's not just a coincidence that women were excluded from the
draft. They were believed incapable of military service...and by
perpetuating their exclusion from the draft, you're perpetuating
that attitude.
Now, in my experience there are plenty of women who can switch from
raging feminist to but-I'm-just-a-girl helplessness at the drop of
a hat when it suits their purposes. I don't think we should enable
such degrading behavior, though.
|10.13.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Isn't there some sort of scientific consensus that the
quickest way to repopulate after a war is by having as many females
available as possible?
Yes, indeed. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our
deeper mineshafts. With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio
of say, 10 females to each male, I would guess that they could then
work their way back to the present gross national product within
say, 20 years.
I hasten to add that since each man will be required to perform
prodigious sexual service, the women will have to be selected for
their sexual characteristics, which will have to be of a highly
stimulating nature ... MEIN FUHRER! I CAN VALK!!!
Mad Max|10.13.08 @ 7:54PM|#
"Maybe this isn't the right way to argue with Maxie though - I
have a sneaking suspicion that he'd happily go back to not allowing
women to vote, if he thought it would bring divorce rates down or
some such crap."
Nonsense - if we *must* have universal suffrage, allowing single
men to vote, then the stability of the Republic can *only* be
maintained by extending the ballot to women.
Why did states like Wyoming allow equal, "gender-neutral" suffrage
ahead of other states? Simple - the votes of single, unpropertied,
rootless men was a potentially destabilizing influence which had to
be balanced out by the sensible influence of married women.
Check out the history of the Women's Christian Temperance Union - a
key lobbyist for women's suffrage. They thought that married female
voters would help balance out the propertyless single men who went
in for socialism and the Liquor Trust.
cunnivore|10.13.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Yes, because alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, and gun
control -- the greatest "accomplishments" of soccer/security moms
and their foremothers -- have turned out to be such stabilizing
elements of our political landscape.
To paraphrase Voltaire, I hate the things that women tend to vote
for...but I will defend to the death their right to do it.
Neu Mejican|10.13.08 @ 8:08PM|#
The anti-phonics fad was sweeping education back then, while
teachers using the superior phonics method were derided as
reactionaries.
It is important to note that the "science/experts" said that whole
language, which is phonics +, was better than phonics alone. The
"anti-phonics fad" was the result of laymen and their common sense
misapplying or misunderstanding what the experts were
saying/advocating.
Metal Messiah|10.13.08 @ 11:09PM|#
(1) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, as
defined in this title, shall be exempt from training and service,
but not from registration, under this title.
Hmm. So that $30 I sent to the Church of the Subgenius might have
been useful for something after all?
MJ|10.13.08 @ 11:24PM|#
I personally do not think there should be draft or registration.
Though, I am open to the argument that a draft is necessary if we
get involved in an extreme situation like another World War level
conflict.
That being said, for the most part women are unsuited physically to
most combat roles (and as pointed out ealrier men may be unsuited
emotionally to having female comrades). Even with the large
logistical tail the modern military has developed, having over half
of the pool of draftees be untrainable for combat will cause an
unnecessary distraction of figuring out how to deal with the female
draftees for the military in a moment of crisis. All for the sake
of making a fetish of a cosmic ideal of gender equality. That is a
singularly bad idea, and it shows how unserious a man and a
politician Obama truly is.
libertarian democrat|10.14.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Fluffy (and co) hit it head on early on. I particularly like the example about drafting only blacks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245