Military

Should Women Be Required to Sign Up for the Military Draft?

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie say OK. Ted Cruz calls it "nuts."

|

SelectiveService
Selective Service

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has ordered that all ground-combat jobs, including special-operations billets, be opened to women. All American men are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old. Since women are now able to serve in combat roles, is there any reason that they should not also be required to register with Selective Service? During the Republican presidential candidate debate on Saturday, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie all more or less agreed that women should be required to sign up.

According to CNN, Ted Cruz, however, later rejected the idea as "nuts" and noted: "I'm the father of two little girls. I love those girls with all my heart. They are capable of doing anything in their hearts' desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in the foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them, doesn't make any sense at all."

The Sunday New York Times featured an article that reported that economists in general are against the military draft and in favor of a voluntary force. So far, so good. The article then also noted:

The Supreme Court in 1981 rejected a challenge to the registration requirement brought by men who argued that it was unfair to exclude women. The court said at the time that the registration system existed to provide a reserve of combat troops, and the military had the authority to determine that women were not able to serve in those roles. …

"The military now concedes that women can perform in combat roles, so the rationale for why they shouldn't be drafted doesn't apply," said Tim Bakken, a law professor at the United States Military Academy, adding that a new lawsuit could force a change. "The facts have overtaken the law."

Interestingly, a 2011 study in The Journal of Politics reported survey results that found that instituting a draft significantly reduced the public's support for war: "moving from an all-volunteer to a conscript army decreases support by 17% (from 54% to 37%)."

I strongly suspect that including women in the draft would reduce the American public's appetite for war even more.

Disclosure: My birthday draft lottery number was 320.

NEXT: Utah 'anti-doxxing' bill would outlaw mentioning a person's name online 'with intent to offend'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes. Next question.

    1. No. No draft. Next question.

      1. If there’s no “draft”, then the question is moot.

        However…..the question isn’t moot.
        So, what Hamster said.

        1. If people want to think I consider the best option to be equal enslavement, all the people who call me an anarchist in other threads won’t stop them.

          No one is seriously offering to eliminate the draft here. Or the IRS. Or Obamacare. Or property taxes, or regulatory schemes, or the myriad ways in which we are enslaved to a government for the good of politicians, their bureaucrat minions and the free-shit army.

          No carve-outs. When everyone has skin in the game, the consequences are not as easy to ignore.

          1. At no point has everyone ever had skin in the game. That’s just rhetoric draft supporters use to obfuscate the reality that when we had a draft there were multiple ways for the connected and even just the well-off to permanently defer their service or guarantee themselves better postings.

            1. Plus, let’s learn from the gay marriage debacle.

              The draft doesn’t even have the fig leaf of ‘equal rights’ that some of us supported marriage equality on. Its slavery – full stop.

              1. The draft doesn’t even have the fig leaf of ‘equal rights’ that some of us supported marriage equality on. Its slavery – full stop.

                Well, selective slavery, aka selective-service.

      2. Yes, because equality under the law is both a right and a important principle. If the law can be unequally applied it allows it to be used a weapon without consequences.

        1. I understand this argument, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t qualify for any tax deductions, but I’m not calling for elimination of all tax breaks in the name of fairness. Taxation is immoral, if someone, anyone can slip out of some of it, good for them. Same thing with draft. Men can’t get out of it, but that’s no reason to violates women’s rights.

          1. But what is the basis for “men only”?
            Would your opinion of the draft be the same if only women were drafted? Or only blacks? Or only whites? Or only gingers?
            Your opinion would be: Well lucky for the non-gingers, I guess.

            1. Yes. For the record I’m fine with women being in combat roles if they’re capable. But if the draft was black men only, I would still support repealing the draft, not including white men.

              1. Just like I support ending the War on Drugs, rather than calling for more even enforcement across demographics.

                1. S’funny, around here it’s generally accepted that spinning police violence as solely racial in origin is meant to keep non-black citizens disinterested in correcting police violence.

                  You’d think there was, like, a connection to be grasped here.

                  1. So you’re in the increase incarceration of white people to even out the numbers, not repeal bad laws camp?

                2. Except is is illegal for white people to sell drugs just like it is illegal for minorities to sell drugs. There is no legal carve-out exempting white people.

              2. ‘But if the draft was black men only, I would still support repealing the draft, not including white men.”

                And if the repeal was not effective, you would advocate it remain “black only”?

                1. Do you think the abolitionist said “end all slavery, but if you can’t, add white people to it”?

                2. You can’t just continue to advocate for repeal?

              3. But if the draft was black men only, I would still support repealing the draft, not including white men.

                But if that was politically unviable, you’d continue to support leaving it to just black men only?

                1. If he was worried about what was politically viable, he wouldn’t be a libertarian.

                2. But if that was politically unviable, you’d continue to support leaving it to just black men only?

                  I would vote against the provision that adds non-black men to the draft, yes.

    2. A true “liberty candidate” would end draft registration for men, not add it for women.

    3. No. The typical woman isn’t the equal of the typical man in all things, and we don’t need to pretend that they are as an insane show of faith in a false god.

      To the extent that some women do have the mindset and physique for service, many of them are already choosing to serve. Forcing women into combat is a society’s desperate last resort; drafting 14 year old males would be more biologically sensible.

  2. Nuts? More like no nuts, am I right?

  3. IF we have an army where women can take any combat role (and apparently we do, which I think is the nutsiest part), and

    IF we have draft registration,

    then what possible reason is there for women not to register?

    1. I am a woman trapped in a man’s body, I cannot register for the draft.

    2. The patriarchy, as Cruz so wonderfully represented.
      The patriarchy is also behind the call for women to register.

    3. Stop mansplaining with your logic and facts.

    4. Because men shouldn’t register either. What’s so difficult about this?

      Why do you so easily accept Caesar’s claim that he has a right to the lives of our sons? They bear God’s image, not Caesar’s (Mark 12:13-17).

      1. What’s so difficult about this?

        What’s so difficult about understanding first-order logic.

        If X, then Y does not imply X.

    5. Because allowing women to serve in combat roles only acknowledges that some nonzero number of women are as qualified as men, whereas drafting them says that the typical woman off the street is just as qualified as the typical man.

  4. “Disclosure: My birthday draft lottery number was 320.”

    My voluntary enlistment date was March 9, 1985. 🙂

    The draft is slavery, and should be abolished, period.

    1. A government that cannot gather enough volunteers to defend it doesn’t deserve to govern.

      1. Similarly, a war that requires conscription is almost certainly an unjust (i.e., non-defensive) war.

        1. And conscription is a rather antiquated and counterproductive means of filling the ranks. As a policy it’s one of low efficacy in addition to it’s deficit of ethics.

    2. I enlisted and started boot camp on Apr. 6th 1986. All the salty sea dogs I served with (who had been in Vietnam) all said that the Corps was so much better as an all volunteer outfit than it had been when the draft was going.

      1. You mean people who actually want to be there are better than unmotivated, resentful conscripts? Shocked, I am.

      2. Hasn’t the Corps always been an all-volunteer outfit? My understanding is that the draft was for the Army only; I know of a lot of boomers who enlisted in the Navy or the Air Force after getting drafted because they didn’t want to be dead infantry meat and figured they had a decent chance of just getting stateside assignments or working on an aircraft carrier during the war.

        1. All the services accepted voluntary enlistees during the draft. All the services at one point of another accepted draftees – Army, obviously, would have gotten the majority of them. And I believe the Navy and AF never actually got any as they had plenty of enlistments anyway.

          A lot of guys got drafted and then immediately went down to the recruiter and voluntarily enlisted in the service of choice.

          The number that seems to be floating around is 42,000 Marine draftees.

          1. I was one of those, ending up as a Naval Officer instead of an army enlistee. I actually support having some sort of draft, for all people, regardless of gender, sex, race, or disability. If people are considered to be fully capable in civilian life, then they should be able to fulfill a function in the military. Even the disabled can do jobs that do not require combat skills.

            1. I was an engineering officer, and had enlisted people who worked for me with advanced technical degrees, who were evading the draft. The only down side is that the truly able-bodied men are the ones who end up in infantry or artillery, while the wusses take up the safe jobs in the supply system, and this is certain to happen if they draft women. It already exists now and is the reason that they are opening combat jobs, because there are a few women who want to advance, and without combat experience it is difficult to move to the top of the military system. I would bet that most women will not want that experience, just like most men don’t want it, either.

              1. And even though I am much more of a libertarian than a statist, I believe that we should have some sort of public service obligation, because it mixes together people who might not otherwise come into contact with one another. I think it helps the society to share these sorts of burdens, and provides a benefit. The statists try to accomplish it thru forced bussing, diversity re-education camps in schools, installation of affordable housing complexes in the rich suburbs, and affirmative action requirements.

    3. 9 Apr 83.

      As long as we have selective service and allow women to serve combat roles, there is absolutely no reason they should not be forced to register along with their bretheren.

      Allowing them into all combat roles is bad social engineering.

      1. As long as we have selective service and allow women to serve combat roles, there is absolutely no reason they should not be forced to register along with their bretheren.

        Slavery being immoral is one reason that trumps basically everything else.

    4. Unless they only draft criminals since slavery is allowed as punishment for them. Yes slavery is still legal in this country.

  5. No, nobody should be kidnapped.

    1. However, there should be no exceptions based on sex.

      1. So you’re in favor of more kidnapping, slavery and human trafficking. Got it.

  6. Ah yes the draft lottery. Good times.

  7. Combine the search for the best soldiers with economics, and no, women should not be included. Maleness is a very good proxy for combat fitness. However, if this is also about non-fighting roles in the military, then women should be included. As a matter of equality before the law, and as a question of public goods and free-riding, anyone not included in the draft would have to perform a service that increases public welfare, comparable to military service.

    I agree with you suspect, Ronald.

    1. *I agree with [what] you suspect*

      1. I thought that was a mis-placed comma:

        “I agree with you, suspect Ronald.

        1. Not bad. Though, this isn’t a military tribunal.

    2. So you believe in slavery? Slavery to the state? Compulsary government service? ‘A service that increases public welfare’? Isn’t that what a *job* is by definition? If it didn’t increase public welfare then no one would be willing to pay you for it.

      1. Let’s look at that ‘comparable to miiltary service’ part.

        What if the draft is instituted to ensure we have enough fighters to prevent Russia from annexing Ukraine? How much does that increase public welfare? Or what if we want fighters to bolster the South Korean Army because the Norks have decided to move south? How much public welfare is generated from that conflict?

      2. Public goods, tragedy of the commons, undersupply. I’ve accepted that premise, in the above.

        I like your criticism. It makes me wonder to what extent I would adopt a system of retribution. We have autonomy as the ultimate good. That’s based on the assumption that all people are equal, as rule-givers, as norm-setters — which necessitates negative liberty. Yet, why would one accept the assumption that all people are equal? If people violate your autonomy, why not consider yourself supreme and adopt the rule of strength? If morality doesn’t work, why be moral?

  8. I cannot see how it is a libertarian position to expand a government program that is deeply antithetical to personal liberty. Of course I had a similar difficulty understanding why libertarians where ecstatic when the government decided to start issuing cohabitation licenses to same sex couples. Abolish the draft, and abolish civil marriage! The draft is slavery and the state has no role in sanctifying or legitimizing personal decisions about coition, cohabitation and commingling finances.

    1. Equality in injustice.

    2. j: No one here is supporting the draft.

      1. You sure sound tempted, Ron:

        Interestingly, a 2011 study in The Journal of Politics reported survey results that found that instituting a draft significantly reduced the public’s support for war: “moving from an all-volunteer to a conscript army decreases support by 17% (from 54% to 37%).”

        I strongly suspect that including women in the draft would reduce the American public’s appetite for war even more.

    3. “I cannot see how it is a libertarian position to expand a government program that is deeply antithetical to personal liberty.”

      It is not expanding the program. It is diluting the risk per capita by treating all American the same.
      If only persons with size 9 shoe or smaller were presently required to register, would you suggest that parameter not be modified just because “that’s the way it is”?

      1. I am not suggesting the program not be modified, I am suggesting that the program be eliminated as it is unjust, and that modifications that expand it expand injustice. Being forced to register is itself an injustice, not merely the risk of an injustice.

        1. Yet, it decreases the risk of greater injustice (military service), for men. Each woman in forced to serve in the military, means one less man serving in the military. An increasing pool decreases risk of service.

  9. I would have so much more respect for feminists if they made gender-blind draft registration a top priority, instead of wasting time on, well, more frivolous stuff.

    1. The feminists to whom I’ve spoken are happy to have compulsory draft registration for men, but not for women. They want equality when it suits them.

      1. Hence, not equality

        1. The Feminists I’ve spoken to are interested in superiority, not equality.

      2. I’m a feminist and find it completely abhorrent that men are required to register for Selective Service.

        1. I’m a feminist

          That explains a lot.

        2. Me too. I also don’t like that boys and girls are segregated in sports.

          1. The men’s teams sometimes welcome women to try out. That’s how you get female place kickers at the high school and college levels.

            For some reason the women’s teams don’t seem to respond in kind…

            1. Do men ever try out for women’s teams?

              Serious question, answer is probably “yes” but you’re the one suggesting that women exclude them if they do… ?

              1. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013…..dered.html

                Both teens had to pass a fitness test in which they were not deemed too physically dominant to play with teenage girls and ultimately won approval to play from the superintendent, said Kuczma, who downplayed the duo’s overall effect on the court.

                Wat?

          2. “I also don’t like that boys and girls are segregated in sports.”

            Because?

          3. I don’t like segregated locker rooms, either.

        3. “I’m a feminist”

          What type, Nikki? “Feminist”, “Classical Feminist”, whatever — cf. liberal, classical liberal.

  10. Either both or none. If both is considered equality in injustice, fine. Get over it.

    1. expanding injustice to all does not make more justice it makes less

      1. One kind of injustice is treating people differently for no good reason, you know.

        1. Exactly. Ideally, there shouldn’t be a Selective Service at all. But, if we are going to give women the right to fight for the same roles in combat, then they should have the same responsibilities.

          The more the pain is felt by the people, the more likely the people will stop what is causing the pain.

        2. I don’t really buy this. Justice is always individual and case specific and I don’t think the reason for an injustice increases it. If one person is incarcerated wrongly, or enslaved by the draft (to stay with the immediate topic) that is an injustice. If the reason for the incarceration, or slavery, is race or sex, you do not have more injustice than if the reason is a lottery.

          1. Equal protection isn’t a thing for you?

            1. In the sense that just laws must apply equally it certainly is, but I do not believe that expanding an unjust law to all decreases injustice. Take chattel slavery as an analogy.

              In the US Africans were enslaved with the blessing of the law. Europeans were legally protected from slavery. Would it have been more just if slavery had been expanded to Europeans as well?

              1. Different case, Flax. What we’re dealing with here is rivarly. Any woman “enslaved” means one less man “enslaved”. Equal injustice doesn’t increase overall injustice, here.

        3. Yes, and the injustice is against those who are being treated unjustly, not those who are spared.

    2. If both is considered equality in injustice, fine.

      So we can stop paying for their birth control too? Win!

      1. No, because refusing to pay for it is “denying them access”.

  11. I think conscription is already going to be a hard sell in the future. For one thing, we just fought two long term wars without one. People are going to look at that and say, “We didn’t need one before, why do we need one now?”

    Another reason is the way Millennials have been coddled for so long–it’s like the whole purpose of government has been to protect children from harm–and the definition of “children” has been expanded to include 24 year-olds. Their parents are reluctant to even let you say something that might upset them. You think they’re going to stand for you taking their kids away and sending them into combat?

    And now you want to conscript daddy’s little monster of a daughter, too?

    If they start making 18 year-old girls register for the draft, it may help ensure that we never have another draft again.

    Meanwhile drones are getting more sophisticated and cheaper to manufacture.

    1. [The] People are going to look at that and say, “We didn’t need one before, why do we need one now?”

      … and the State will say, “That was then this is now. Do as you’re told. Why do think in all of those years when we didin’t have a draft we still had selective sevice registration? We are the State, submit or be crushed.”

    2. I think you are first comment, here, that has acknowledged the simple fact that:

      THERE IS NO DRAFT

      People are registered, but the time it would take to ramp up the selection process, get the first draftees through basic training and deployed to wherever they might be needed, the situation would have had time to play itself out.

      SLAVERY? Really? Draftees get paid, you know and there are deferments, something not available to the African tribesmen, when the Arab slave-traders came a-calling.
      Not to mention, the Constitution grants the Congress the power to “To raise and support Armies”…nothing about them having to be voluntary.

      Is it any wonder “libertarians” will never be regarded as a viable political force – you’re all nuts!

      1. THERE IS NO DRAFT

        Are you seriously this stupid? The point is that the government has the power (or rather, the courts claim it has such a power) to call for drafts, even though it should not.

        SLAVERY? Really?

        Yes, slavery. Enslaving someone and then throwing a bit of money and other benefits in their direction is still slavery. Stealing something from someone and leaving money behind is still stealing.

        Not to mention, the Constitution grants the Congress the power to “To raise and support Armies”…nothing about them having to be voluntary.

        If that were all, then that would merely mean the Constitution supports slavery and would need to be changed. Don’t make the mistake of believing that it’s okay because the Constitution says so.

        But the document has been amended since then, and slavery is not allowed, or isn’t supposed to be allowed. The government ignores this, but it is not acting with any legitimacy whatsoever.

        Is it any wonder “libertarians” will never be regarded as a viable political force – you’re all nuts!

        Respecting individual liberties is nuts? And in a country that’s supposed to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave”? You don’t seem to desire freedom, and you also don’t seem to be very brave.

  12. moving from an all-volunteer to a conscript army decreases support by 17% (from 54% to 37%).

    Sadly, wars seem to continue long after public support wanes. And yet support never wanes permanently. Each new conflict is popular at the outset, despite how the previous one ended. If only people had memories longer than a decade. I still don’t understand how people who grew up during and just before the Vietnam kinetic military action could support the second Iraq kinetic military action. If that experience didn’t teach them a lesson, what will?

  13. Not a very important debate right now. If, somehow, we got into true ground war and were fighting for our national survival, the draft would be back. And whether or not women registered, they would be taking the men – since in a real war, the pretense of gender-equality in combat would be an early casualty.

    1. Have you actually *looked* at high school students these days? Sure, based on fitness the majority of drafted kids would be boys. But frankly, there aren’t enough fit boys to rely on ’em exclusively. They’d take the fit girls too.

      1. “Fit” in high school and “Fit” in the Infantry are two completely different things. Were they start is almost irrelevant except for the time to train required. Where they end is what matters – 95% of men can 1% of women can get there.

  14. the idea that their government would forcibly put them in the foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them,

    I’m pretty sure Cruz just called our soldiers psychopaths who try to kill their colleagues.

    1. I guess Cruz is also unaware that the same argument would apply to small men. Or that there are plenty of jobs in the armed forces other than front-line shooter, where physical strength is not as important.

    2. This was the spin some people made over the weekend, by cutting off the last four words.

      He’s calling the enemy a psychopath.

    3. Maybe he meant they only want to kill the female ones.
      Yes, it was a stupid statement.

  15. Should Women Be Required to Sign Up for the Military Draft?

    And be part of the slave army the Chiefs of Staff ever dream about, yes. What gave them the privilege of saying at home and taking care of their kids? They should be out there being disemboweled by shrapnel and having their brains splattered all over the sand just like the men.

    Girl Poweeeeeeer!

  16. “The military now concedes that women can perform in combat roles, so the rationale for why they shouldn’t be drafted doesn’t apply,” said Tim Bakken, a law professor at the United States Military Academy

    Of course they can ‘perform’. As the saying goes: In times of war, any ‘hole’ you can ‘jump’ into is good enough.

  17. “including women in the draft would reduce the American public’s appetite for war even more”

    Military bureaucracy budget-padding fiefdom-builders and dependent time serving functionaries would like the extra bloat and budget lines associated with expanding registration requirements to women. And they’d be quick to give public support for it on command as ass-kissers, if congressional powers wanted some coordinated public relations push for this.

    But I get the sense that the recent spark for registering women is coming from the military command worried about the troops and missions. Maybe a little jujitsu is going on. If integrating women everywhere is forced by sociopath politicians divorced from the consequences of tinkering with the military based on modish wishful thinking, then why not use the same magical equality-logic to push for a situation that would use public opinion to help restrain politicians from short-sighted playing with real troops?

    That’s always been the tension between an efficient volunteer force and the consequent reduction in accountability of politicians who are always tempted to extend the use of that force to all sorts of bright ideas.

  18. If you start with false premises (e.g., that Caesar has a legitimate moral claim on the lives of our young men) then you will come to false conclusions (Caesar has the same claim on the lives of our young women).

    See 1 Samuel 8.

  19. An idea as pointless and ludicrous as the draft itself is for a nation which has the luxury of choosing the conflicts it participates in.

    There is a reason that virtually every society in the world chooses to place the brunt of military service and jobs with physical hardship on men, and why none choose to place that burden on women. There are better ways to have women put some “skin in the game” when it comes to violent conflict (assuming such is an appropriate goal of public policy in the first place) without throwing them into situations for which they are not physically equipped and which none should humanely be required to support if it is not a matter of existence.

  20. “I’m the father of two little girls. I love those girls with all my heart. They are capable of doing anything in their hearts’ desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in the foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them, doesn’t make any sense at all.”

    Yet a little boy doesn’t? Isn’t it equally absurd that a boys government would do the same thing to him?

    1. In fairness most little boys constantly act like they’re readying for war. They would probably be cool with it

      1. They’d still want recognition. That’s not easily reconciled with giving women military privileges, especially not with the rhetoric of sameness.

  21. “I strongly suspect that including women in the draft would reduce the American public’s appetite for war even more.”

    Didn’t Gillespie call out Bill Maher for supporting a draft on similar reasoning? We’ve had a draft and simultaneous wars for a long time, it doesn’t seem to make too much of a difference.

    Equality is antithetical to liberty in this case.

  22. Should Women Be Required to Sign Up for the Military Draft?

    That’s eeeeasy.

    No. And neither should men.

    Its, quite simply, a form of slavery. And don’t give me ‘but what about a waaaaaar!!111!!?’ If you can’t find enough people to defend your nation then your nation doesn’t deserve to exist. Simple as that.

    1. Completely agree with, “No. And neither should men.”

      But it seems your comment, “If you can’t find enough people to defend your nation then your nation doesn’t deserve to exist,” is false.

      Look at it this way:

      “If a husband and father won’t defend his wife and children, then his wife and children don’t deserve to exist.”

      I do think that the men of a nation do have a moral responsibility to provide for its defense. But it has to be a legitimate defense (not going off shore to “defend national interests”), and I don’t think a lottery-based draft is the way to do it.

      I’d look to Switzerland, both as to national defense (militia-based) and foreign policy (armed neutrality):

      THE SWISS REPORT: A Special Study for the Western Goals Foundation (1983)
      Gen. Lewis Walt (USMC) and Gen. George Patton (USA)
      http://www.constitution.org/mil/swiss_rpt.pdf

      1. Defending your loved ones has little to nothing to do with defending your nation. Theoretically, the government only exists because the people allow it to exist, so if the people let the country die, then that is their decision. You can’t compare the two.

  23. What I noticed about the Republican responses to the question during the debate is that all, except for Bush, treated the question of female selective service registration as a positive for women. Their responses can all be summarized as, “Sure! Women should be given the right to register for selective service just like men.” No moderator or other candidate questioned that perspective at the debate and I haven’t seen it raised anywhere else.

    Bush’s seemed to understand that selective service registration isn’t a privilege of citizenship by dancing around the question. According to Bush we haven’t had a draft in years, won’t ever have another draft, and certainly won’t have a draft under his administration. Bush didn’t offer that under the circumstance, he would be eliminating selective service registration.

    Is it too much for me to suppose that Rand Paul would have pointed out the absurdity of the other candidate’s responses had he been on the stage?

    I’m hoping a similar question will be put first to Clinton and then to Sanders. Too much to hope?

  24. The State understands that anytime it thinks it needs to impliment a draft it will impliment a draft. Selective service registration is a means to ensuring the State will have names, numbers and addresses at the ready when such the time arises. The Sate doesn’t give a fuck what you think. As far as it goes, the State is fine having women sign up for selective service. Fodder is fodder. It will be as easy to glorify the deaths of our young girls as it is to gloriy the deaths of our young men.

  25. BTW, folks, we just legalized gay marriage, did we not? We could have repealed marriage for everyone, but that was politically unviable, so we enslaved gay people too. I didn’t sense a whole lot of libertarian gnashing of teeth about that.

    1. Perhaps because there is a world of difference between whether familial should recognized / legitimized / recorded by the State, and whether the State has any legitimate authority to send citizens to kill / be killed?

    2. Perhaps because there is a world of difference between whether familial RELATIONSHIPS should BE recognized / legitimized / recorded by the State, and whether the State has any legitimate authority to send citizens to kill / be killed?

  26. I find it interesting that several commenters think that women don’t have “skin in the game” unless they can be conscripted / enslaved along with men.

    Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC), author of War is a Racket, seemed to think that American mothers and wives have plenty of skin in the game already:

    “I PROPOSE an Amendment for Peace, to the Constitution of the United States:

    “1. The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is prohibited.

    “2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

    “3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is [sic] hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.

    “Such an amendment would be an absolute guarantee to **the women of America that their loved ones** never would be sent overseas to be needlessly shot down in European or Asiatic or African wars that are of no concern to our people.”

    An Amendment for Peace, Woman’s Home Companion, Sep. 1936
    http://justwarriors.blogspot.c…..peace.html

  27. I strongly suspect that including women in the draft would reduce the American public’s appetite for war even more.

    No.

    Since it’s not 1972 and nobody thinks there’s the slightest chance of the draft being reactivated (at least not for a military purpose; Democrats occasionally posture about some “national service” idiocy).

    1. Since it’s not 1972 and nobody thinks there’s the slightest chance of the draft being reactivated

      I believe it is this sentiment that had Bush dismissing the question of selective service registration as a meaningful issue at the debate.

      On the other hand, who could rule out the State re-implimenting a draft within the next 5 to 10 years. Certainly no one in their right mind would rule out a re-implimentation of the draft ever. There is a reason selective service regristration is still the law, the State anticipates drafting it’s youth into military servitude for the purpose of executing war(s).

  28. “The military has conceded” my fat ass. THey were forced to allow women in combat roles despites studies conducted to the tune of millions of dollars that prove that mixed gender infantry units get hurt more often, fire less accurately, have trouble negotiating obstacles and are less likely to complete mission objectives, that last one being the WHOLE POINT.

    THis is a great big social experiment that is going to get people killed. And why shouldn’t women be drafted? Haven’t feminists been saying they can do everything men can do? Time to put up or shut up.

  29. I say they should be able to serve, but, as long as there IS a Selective Service (which should be gotten rid of), women should have to sign up.

  30. The question of Selective Service registration for females tests the mettle of the argument whether equality may be achieved without benefits.

  31. Dear Fembots: Congratulations, you’ve won.

    You are now equal enough to be an active participant in your own genocide, as you’ve demanded.

    If 50% of the men are killed in battle. . . if 75% or 80% of the men are killed in battle – there is no net loss of breeding potential – your genetic legacy can continue, your people will continue.

    If 50% of the women are killed in battle – you’ve just lost 50% of your ability to birth a new generation. . .

    The fastest route to the elimination of a people is. . . destroying the women.
    What people are over-represented in the military? Poor, and minorities – the very people the Globalist Elitist Scumfucks want to be rid of.

    Once again. . . Congratulations. . .

  32. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.