Women Are on the Verge of Being Forced Into Military Conscription Due to a Perverse Notion of 'Equality'

Expanding government-imposed burdens to new classes of people is a bad idea, unless the goal is equality of immiseration.


The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday approved a language change in the $768 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would expand the "Selective Service"—the oxymoronically named requirement under threat of imprisonment for 18-year-old males to submit their names to a national registry of potential military conscripts—to include the female of the species.

As Ella Lubell noted here yesterday, among those cheering this development is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose lawsuit challenging the male-only draft was denied a hearing last month by a Supreme Court that nonetheless signaled its potential interest should Congress decline to change the law. "Men-only registration actually impedes women's full participation in civic life," the ACLU maintains.

It's worth pausing on that logic, particularly in light of what that "L" stands for. Is "participation" really the right word to describe being coerced by the state to sign and mail a piece of paper for the purpose of expediting any future governmental conscription of citizens into a death-struggle? Is compulsory self-reporting to a national list of people whose freedoms could potentially be usurped really characterizable as a liberty?

"That women register, and perhaps be called up in the event of a draft, is a necessary prerequisite for their achieving equality as citizens, as it has been for other groups historically discriminated against in American history," concluded the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, in a March report heavily perfumed with the terminology of anti-discrimination.

This share-the-pain interpretation of "equality" is common, but fundamentally perverse. When assessing unequal treatment under the law based on immutable characteristics, a first-order sorting question should be: Is this a government-imposed legal inequality of opportunity, or of burden? The former deserves overturning; the latter should be ameliorated via not expansion but removal.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 would not have been made more legally and morally palatable by expanding the unwanted-immigrant class to other nationalities; instead, it was finally reversed altogether by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during World War II would not have been any more just had we imprisoned more hyphenated Americans derived from other Axis-allied nations. Instead, we issued apologies and made reparations.

Those actions, which wrecked lives, were explicitly discriminatory in intention and effect. Limiting the Selective Service to males, on the other hand, is for most dudes (though not me) a mild annoyance at worst, and if there's any divinable discriminatory intent, it is—as the ACLU and National Commission both contend—the old-fashioned paternalistic notion that the ladies aren't strong enough to fight.

Yet the actual effect is discriminatory to the young men who have to comply or face the (rare) threat of imprisonment and fines, and the much-more-common blocked access to student loans, federal employment, and even driver's licenses. Using the opportunity/burden test, the barring of qualified women (or gays, or other groups who have been blocked historically) from the opportunity of serving in combat has been rightly overturned, but merely exposing them to burdens of draft registration should lead us in an opposite direction: to remove the burden imposed on males.

Laws and other government initiatives that were less explicitly aimed at outgroups, but nonetheless discriminatory in application, have generally been thrown out by courts, rather than expanded to negatively impact a broader population. Most post–Civil War poll taxes didn't say anything about race (with the exception of literal "grandfather clauses," which exempted the descendants of prior, definitionally white male voters from paying), though a century later both the Congress and the Supreme Court recognized that both intent and effect were discriminatory on poor and black communities.

Closer to our era, New York City's "Stop, Question, and Frisk" policy was judged in 2013 to be unconstitutional due its unequal enforcement—around 90 percent of all applications—on minority residents. The solution was not to "mend it" by shaking down the swells in Midtown and Wall Street, but simply to end it altogether.

There's a kissing cousin to the flawed share-the-burden instinct when it comes to criminal justice reform. Every time a rich and/or white suspect or defendant is seen to have received less punitive treatment than what frequently befalls those who are poor and non-white, there are calls even from diehard criminal justice reformers to somehow equalize the punishment by brutalizing the privileged.

"For my friends in Georgia," tweeted former Will & Grace actress Debra Messing on Dec. 10, 2020, "your next U.S. Senators will decide the future of the George Floyd Criminal Justice Reform bill and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Be sure to VOTE." Five days later Messing tweeted to Donald Trump: "I hope you live a long life in prison where you become the most popular boyfriend to all the inmates."

The solution to the disparate enforcement of, say, drug laws, on rich celebrities and homeless addicts, is not to make sure Lindsay Lohan serves the maximum sentence each time but to stop jailing adults for drug use, period. So it should be with that other 20th century anachronism, the military draft.

If and when the Democratic-run Congress passes the female-conscript-inclusive NDAA, and President Joe Biden signs it into law, my daughters will not magically have more liberties or even experience discrimination any less. It is discriminatory—and, frankly, embarrassing for any mature country, let alone one dedicated to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"—to treat any 18-year-old like the physical property of the state. The policy goal should be equality of opportunity, not equality of immiseration.

NEXT: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Rules Out New Round of Lockdowns, Mask Mandates

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hope they enjoy their equality, good and hard.

    1. Anti-war feminists were always strangely silent on ending Selective Service...I wonder why. It probably has nothing to do with the sex of the registrants.

      Maybe no they can lend their shrill, high-pitched voices to the fight to end a stupid, outdated policy.

      1. GoogIe ahora paga entre 17488 y 24900 dólares al mes por trabajar en línea desde casa. Me incorporé a este trabaj0 hace 2 meses y he ganado $ 27540 sdDv en mi primer mes de este trabajo. Puedo decir que mi vida ha cambiad0, ¡compIetamente para mejor! Mira lo que hago.>>>> VISIT HERE

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65000 to $70000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.
          You can check it out here…—–> READ MORE

        2. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone…KJH Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See….. Visit Here

      2. Oh, it absolutely has to do with the sex of the people involved.

        'Feminsts' after all, are not a general 'equality for all' group - they're a group of activists focused on the issues of a specific subgroup of people - women. And so they, not unexpectedly, don't care about freedom and equality issues affecting other people.

        People sometimes try to tell me I am a feminist - I tell them 'no, I'm for *everyone's* freedom and equality, equally'.

        They don't get it.

        1. You would be an egalitarian.

        2. Based on their behavior over the last half-century, they don’t care about most issues that affect women either. They are a loud and powerful arm of the Progressive establishment. They only press Progressive talking points. They haven’t pushed for women to be included in the selective service registry for the simple reason that they don’t want to have to explain to young women that rights carry responsibilities.

      3. I’m sure there were a few honest feminists who considered this. Very few.

    2. I usually make every effort to be respectful in commenting, but in this case.
      There hasn't been a draft in decades you moron and women are already serving in the military.
      Now crawl back under your rock.

      1. So Reason can't tell the difference between grown women and cute little girls playing dress up? What's that all about?

      2. Women should be treated equally, which means registering.

        1. Or doing away with the registry entirely…but I somehow can’t see the Progressive establishment giving up that much control over citizens unless somebody holds a gun to their heads.

      3. The government hasn't drafted - but men must register for conscription and women don't. Which is, you know, the point of the article.

    3. Same here. Equal opportunity with men should bring equal responsibility.

  2. Five days later Messing tweeted to Donald Trump: "I hope you live a long life in prison where you become the most popular boyfriend to all the inmates."


    1. Nobody cares what you think of Trump anymore.
      Get over it.
      Your catatonic messiah is leading us now.
      Let's hear about all of the wonderful things our new leader is doing for the country in Trump's stead, please.

      1. The GOP still has power to block whatever in the Senate, and which GOP senator defies Trump? He's certainly still relevant.

        1. Only relevant in the minds of the delusional. Let it go man. The bogey man is gone, it's safe to come out.

          1. It's delusional to think many GOP pols are striving to keep in step with Trump?

            1. You deserve t9 be shat upon rather than mocked.

            2. You really have nothing without Trump to scream about, do you?

              So there any point to you?

            3. They aren’t striving to keep in step with Trump, they are striving to keep in step with voters, many of whom despise people like you and the policies you advocate.

              I didn’t vote for Trump, but I certainly hope that GOP senators will destroy the Biden agenda.

          2. She can’t let it go, she’d have to be introspective and acknowledge that this administration has continued and/or expanded many of Trump’s policies.

            Much like Obama did with Bush policies.

        2. Uhm, pretty much all of them.

          Like they did when he was President.

      2. You seem to be awfully bothered that someone brought up Trump in a comment. So contrary to what you said "Nobody cares what you think of Trump anymore" you seem to care enough to comment.

        1. Intent, context. These are more important than your mind-reading and poor misinterpretation. The OP's comment stands, many of the left-leaning paid trolls and shills seem to have nothing without the spray-tanned loudmouth.

      3. Check out the recent SNAFU with George P Bush, running for office in Texas (Jeb's son/W's nephew.) He tried to lick Trump's boots as a way to get an endorsement which would nearly guarantee him the GOP nomination in Texas. But Trump endorsed the current GOP office-holder instead. That had to hurt!

        Trump still controls the GOP. They still call him "The President." They still send him all their cash, too. Grifters gonna grift and victims gonna get victimized.

    2. Why don't you fuck off and die.

  3. I agree that Selective Service is coercive, big-brother bullshit.

    But part of me is supremely happy that every feminist that wanted equal rights now gets to bear equal responsibility. And maybe there will be some additional voices from those women to end Selective Service now that they're signing up to be part of Uncle Sam's big, bad war machine should the need arise.

    1. That was always the goal of the feminists, though, and everyone knew it--going back to the 1970s--except for gullible freshman college girls who hadn't taken Women's Studies 101 yet.

      "“Schlafly became an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) during the 1970s as the organizer of the “STOP ERA” campaign. STOP was an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges”. She argued that the ERA would take away gender-specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security, separate restrooms for males and females, and exemption from Selective Service (the military draft).

      Much like collectivist socialism being something that is inflicted on the working class by elitists, feminist authoritarianism is the same thing--and women like Schlafly opposing ERA knew it and publicized it. Feminism has always had an elitist aspect that was about politicians, political activists, and academics banding together to inflict liberation on unwilling women using the coercive power of government.

      Where's Cathy Young to tell us about Women Against Feminism?

      1. What women's 'privileges' do you support?

        1. We can start with not being conscripted.

          1. On second thought, not being conscripted isn't really a privilege.

            1. You should probably ask someone that has been drafted if they felt like they missed out on some privilege. Many Americans have never wandered from their safe space at college so what the hell would they know?

          2. Equality is equality.

            1. Equality, especially in this case, is relevant to a particular situation. Women are not "equal" to men on the battlefield and never will be, so, in my opinion, they should not be drafted. I was an army paratrooper for 21 years and at retirement was commander of a large, multi-man Army Recruiting Station. The attrition rate of women far exceeded that of men, mainly due to the fact that women could not handle the physical aspects of training as well as men. The average 5' 5" 150lb man is 30% stronger than the average woman of the same height and weight, (that's a biological fact) and all the training in the world will not overcome that difference. Drafting women would create a logistical nightmare, which is the LAST thing we would need in a crisis severe enough to require instituting the draft...

      2. Writing for The Bulwark. Trump broke her.

    2. I got back from Vietnam - I was drafted - to find that I could now vote. The explanation had something to do with fighting and getting to vote. Women, most of whom thought I was a moral coward and baby killer, could also vote, but none had to make choices that I had done.
      Of course the draft is bad, but fair is fair.

      1. "Women, most of whom thought I was a moral coward and baby killer"


        1. Can't spell "draftee", lefty asshole?

        2. More likely Bilko, not that those screaming at him made the distinction.

        3. QA, fuck off. The dude shares a story about being forced into war involuntarily, and you have a smart remark about it? Nasty.

    3. I concur. Even when not allowed to fight, women could be drafted for other military purposes to free more men for combat. Equal rights does mean equal responsibilities. Having said that, as a veteran I am utterly opposed to the draft in any form.

      I think that, tactically, including women in Selective Service is the surest way to put an end to it. Conservatives and progressives alike will vote to abolish this repulsive practice.

      1. Equal rights does mean equal responsibilities.

        Oh, yes it does. It does indeed.

        You are, of course, free to take a young woman's place in the firing line - at least until you're called up yourself.

        1. What part of "veteran" did you not understand? And I DON'T support the draft.

    4. "I agree that Selective Service is coercive, big-brother bullshit." It's also a joke Not Robbers. I was on active duty before I was required to register. Ten years after I got out, with a 25% disability, I was applying to go to college. Right before the start, I get a call from the Registrar's Office telling me there's a problem. The problem was that I never registered with Selective Service. I had a copy of my discharge papers, but, they didn't count. I called everybody that I could think of, but, they were of no help until I got a hold of a woman in St. Louis at the Records Office. She pulled up my info and I heard her say "Disabled? Those bastards". She put me on hold and a few minutes later she said that it was taken care of. Ten minutes later I get a call from Selective Services telling me everything was good. He then asked how I got a hold of the woman in St. Louis? I said that she just answered the phone. and I asked "Why?". It turned out that she was an Assistant Secretary who was doing a spot check and she fired of a rocket to SS. Five minutes later the College calls me up to tell me everything is good.

      1. LOL! Yes, "It Rolls Downhill" indeed. Glad you got it straightened out. The "Logic" displayed by the erstwhile administrative drones at both the college and at Social Security show both a smattering of cowardice and fiefdom protectionism; afraid to make an "Executive Decision" despite the illogicality of the application of "The Rules Say ... " in all circumstances, and also a sort of, "I don't care how this affects you, I've made my decision now go away" mentality.

        As to the Selective Service requirement, I'm for it, even though my first day of active duty was one month and two days after my 18th birthday because I joined. Here's a Mark Twain attribution that explains my viewpoint best: "When I was 18, I was ashamed of my father and how ignorant he was. But, by the time I turned 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned".
        [Ex-GI 06/'59-06/'62]

      2. Good for you. I hit that gap between the registration requirements. Joined anyway at 22. I was still in the National Guard when I went to college and was never asked about my registration status.

    5. Yes, exactly. Take the issue to it's most extreme logical conclusion so that the maximum harm is inflicted. Then see changes their mind.

  4. This is exactly what I was saying yesterday.

    I begrudge no one justice or liberty. If I don't have it, I don't want them to be treaty unjustly like I am. I want to be free.

    And the people who want to subject women to conscription are likely to be feminists, progressives, etc., who aren't looking to make society free. They're using equality as an excuse to increase the scope of their power. The people who want to force women into the military against their will are the same people who want to violate our First Amendment rights our Second Amendment rights, teach CRT in our schools, etc.

    Nothing about equality justifies authoritarianism or socialism, but that's what they're trying to accomplish. When they come for the kulaks and the middle class, it's always in the name of equality.

    1. Maybe now all those feminists will realize that if this is what equality looks like, they should work to place fewer burdens on men rather than expanding the burdens they place on women. They are going to double the pool of people this stupid program inconveniences for no reason other than government authority says so.

      1. See my post above.

        This isn't a surprise to academic, activist, or political feminists. They've always known this is coming. They're surprised by this. This is what they want--to force women to be free using the coercive power of the state.

    2. Ken, I agree. I was in the Navy 82-87. They had just started bringing women in to the service. I was an Aircrewman in a helicopter squadron. The training squadron had a woman pilot who was just plain good. She was not allowed to deploy. She was not allowed to be a Helicopter Aircraft Commander (HAC) by law. I'm pretty sure that her name was Chris. When the aircrew guys were drinking at the club, every so often the subject of "if you had to fly into Hell, who would you want at the controls?" Four or five male pilots would be tossed about, but, when it came to co-pilot 95% of the time Chris was the choice. Personnel choices at that time was governed by "billets". A "billet" was a duty station for a sailor. When I first went in there was a two year sea duty billet (on ship or a deployable squadron) and two year shore duty (no ship non-deployable). When they brought women in who could only serve ashore or in certain other "billets" it caused resentment. My sea , shore rotation changed from 24 and 24 to 48 and 24.

  5. Uhm the author might want to check history, first generation German and Italian immigrants were also rounded up and or monitored just not at the same level as the Japanese. Chuck Yeager in his autobiography talked about extra scrutiny he received when he applied for flight school because his sister was married to an Italian.

    1. Yes, I caught that idiotic, history changing comment too.

  6. Isn't Elizabeth Nolan Brown this website's leading voice for libertarian feminism? Seems like her analysis is the only one that matters.


    1. Matt Welch is her pen name.

  7. Women Are on the Verge of Being Forced Into Military Conscription Due to a Perverse Notion of 'Equality'

    Says people who haven't been paying attention.

    1. It’s very revealing about the ACLU, and the left in general, that they’re fine with indentured servitude as long as it’s applied “equally”.

      1. This would apply to the ACLU, and the left in general's, idea that women should not be exempt from jury duty, no?

        1. "...that women should not be exempt from jury duty, no?"

          What does cherry-picking pay these days?

          1. I'm pretty sure cherry popping is its own channel on porn sights... Ohhh you said cherry picking

            1. Verah Phunny. (O'course, I've notice that the very same women who want to demonstrate for the "Equal Right" to go topless in public are the very same ones who probably [except at home - after dark] shouldn't.)

  8. Using the opportunity/burden test, the barring of qualified women (or gays, or other groups who have been blocked historically) from the opportunity of serving in combat has been rightly overturned, but merely exposing them to burdens of draft registration should lead us in an opposite direction: To remove the burden imposed on males.

    This is the wrong road for 'libertarianism'. Eliminate the NATIONAL registration. That should be state level -even if the legislation is national - under the heading of militia.

    Burden exists unless you are an anarchist. If that burden is entirely in the form of cash taxes, then in fact you have tilted government towards those who control money.

    Historically there have been two alternatives to cash taxes - one is the burden of labor/time, one is the burden of in-kind payments. Both require govt to operate differently and both require some constraints to prevent abuse.

    But providing individuals with choice as to what their burden will be is in fact a great way to reduce the coercion of a particular burden level. Libertarians are addicted to the cash-taxes approach and it is foolish.

    1. Burden exists unless you are an anarchist. If that burden is entirely in the form of cash taxes, then in fact you have tilted government towards those who control money.

      These burdens currently exist because they are imposed.

      Conscription is slavery.

      Taxes are slavery.

      1. The burdens must exist unless you believe anarchism works. There is no governance by bake sale.

        So a question can be posed - can you CHOOSE (or mixnmatch) which you prefer - conscription, taxes, payment-in-kind? Obviously govt itself sets the terms for the pricing of those based on what it actually needs. But I can see many situations - eg this pandemic - where people would have far preferred to contribute their time to help where they could locally. Better that than to be unemployed AND wonder how much your future cash tax burden is going to increase while everyone says 'don't you worry your pretty head. Just go shopping. Top Men are on this.'

        1. There is a difference between a burden voluntarily assumed and a burden forced on you at the barrel of a gun.

          If, as you seem to be asserting, we have a *duty* to tax money to the government - where is the line? 100% taxes? Physical labor?

          >where people would have far preferred to contribute their time to help where they could locally.

          What was stopping them?

          1. If, as you seem to be asserting, we have a *duty* to tax money to the government – where is the line? 100% taxes? Physical labor?

            The line is what we ourselves choose to have the government do. Where, in a first iteration, we see what the initial choice costs (meaning labor, capital, resource - NOT dollars), decide whether we are willing to pay that, and then make the final choice re what to do.

            The only limit is we pay for what we say we want. There is no debt beyond just working capital. No ability to force someone in future to pay for what we wanted. Which also means there is no purely ideological constraint on that current burden. Nothing that allows for the sleaziness of - well we agree that we should only burden ourselves this much so lets pass the rest of the burden to someone else tomorrow.

            What was stopping them?

            A government that defines everything in terms of cash taxes - where money is the measure of all things. The stimulus plans - and all state level plans were purely about spending dollars - by experts who already controlled those dollar channels. That is not an alien imposition by government either. It is in fact exactly what those who control the production of cash WANT to be the measure of all things. They WANT an emergency like a pandemic to be solely about cash so they can decide on what that will cost.

            1. The limit should be funding the constitutionally defined, limited functions of government, not the whims of voters.

        2. Burdens would be commensurate with benefits.

          Everybody should have to come to the defense of this country when attacked.

          Nobody should be forced to fight for installing “democratic regimes” in some s..thole using the US military; nobody should be forced to pay for it.

          Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else’s healthcare or base income or children.

  9. Oh, and since "equality" is no longer in vogue, and now the notion is "equity", we should stop conscripting men for about 400 years and only conscript women. And you know I'm right.

    1. My equity calculator agrees.

    2. we should stop conscripting men for about 400 years and only conscript women. And you know I’m right.

      I'll gladly accept my reparations payments under the table.

    3. It's nice to know the code of chivalry is not dead!

      1. Open your own door

      2. Chivalry? That antiquated, core institution of the male patriarchy? What are you, a misogynist?

      3. You do not get to whine for chivalry while pushing modern feminism.

        Everything men can do, women can do better, natch?

        If you want chivalry, start caring about and liking and respecting men.

        1. Absolutely right!

        2. Hmm, " ... Everything men can do, women can do better ... "? Y'mean like, if a man believes he's a woman he can compete in Women's Sports - and get out of the draft? Now there's "Equity" for ya.

    4. Just split the draft 50-50.

      1. But that would smash the "Disproportionate" argument all to smithereens. Imagine if society and societies's government said: "Sorry, the percentage of criminals in your category have already committed their allotted number of crimes for this counting period, you'll have to abstain until the next one begins". "Oh, The Equity!"

      2. I assume you mean draft the splits too?

    5. Good point.

  10. Trans women most surprised at how this ended up.

    1. “You mean I cut it off for nothing?”

    2. Corporal Klinger hardest hit...

    3. Not really. They will tend to volunteer to join the military , for the medical benefits funding their transition (thanks to the taxpayers).

  11. This is the kind of thing that happens when someone thinks that equality of opportunity (freedom to make your own decisions about things in your life) takes a back seat to what some idiot defines as "equity." Therefore, forced servitude (military service) must be enforced even upon those who may not wish it. Oh yeah -- "freedom."

    Next up: prison time or fines for not registering to vote. TRUE freedom, no?

    1. Yes, just about everyone here is against conscription. The point is to use proposal as a weapon against:

      A) Feminism - as it illuminates their hypocricy and thus dilutes their intellectual and moral standing.

      B) Conscription itself - as women won't want to be subject to it.

      Employ a little strategy, Libertarians.

  12. That hair isn't regulation, kid.

    1. They tell you that while you were "Sittin' on the 'Group W' bench"?
      Alice's Restaurant -Arlo Gutherie. [Give it a listen.]

  13. Expanding government-imposed burdens to new classes of people is a bad idea, unless the goal is equality of immiseration.

    Yeah, that's the same idiocy as believing that taxing 20% of Americans in order to pay for the services for the remaining 80% is somehow "libertarian". Thanks, Welch, for proving that your brand of libertarianism is indistinguishable from socialism.

  14. Well, Matt, it seems equality really does mean equality.
    Why do you think the fascists have changed to equity?
    Of course, for actual equity in the military, if we use equity in education as the guide, only women should fight until they achieve the same casualty numbers as men did in our dark past.

    1. Equity also demands that we take steps to lower women's life expectancy until it equals that of men.

      1. 81% of murder victims are male. "Clearly" we need to incentivize killing women to achieve equality. To achieve equity we will need to incentivize killing women enough that 81% of murder victims are female.

        Or maybe it would be better if we incentivized not killing men?

      2. Military service partially contributes to men's shorter life span.

        1. Only if they have VA for health care.

          1. And the progs want to give everyone VA level health care.

  15. Hey you're either equal or you aren't. If there really is no meaningful difference as far as ability, talent, etc., then let's eliminate all women's and men's sports teams; level that playing field once and for all!

  16. The point of the draft is to make it harder for politicians to send “others” to war.

    Turns out we have plenty of volunteers.

    1. "The point of the draft is to make it harder for politicians to send “others” to war."

      Bullshit. The draft is there to ensure bodies for very unpopular wars. Politicians always send others to war: it's not like their sons/daughters will actually be drafted. Notice the word "Selective" in the title. The poor and unconnected always go.

      1. There’s a kind of logic to it. If people could feared conscription, they wouldn’t vote for spreading democracy in Afghanistan.

        If using a volunteer army, who cares what the warmonger in chief does? They all willingly signed up for it.

    2. That used to be the liberal argument, when liberals were nominally anti-war. They hoped that by making the average family at risk of losing a son in a pointless war, voters would vote for fewer pointless wars.

      But now the progressive argument for the draft isn't about discouraging war, it's about making sure the majority of people joining the military aren't from conservative families in the South (as they are now). You can't have hand-picked pro-lefty divisions to guard the Capitol and round up dissenters when the Army is full of people who believe in liberty.

  17. Expanding government-imposed burdens to new classes of people is a bad idea, unless the goal is equality of immiseration.

    An old man is scratching at the dirt with a stick, trying to grow a few crops, when he uncovers an old bottle. He gives the bottle a rub and out pops a genie who tells the old man he can have one wish.

    The old man thinks for a moment and then says, "My neighbor has a cow, a big, beautiful, healthy cow that gives plenty of milk, enough milk for drinking, for churning into butter, for making cheese, a wonderful cow."

    The genie says, "I see, and you would like a cow such as the one your neighbor has?"

    And the old man says,"No, I am too old and feeble to take care of a cow such as that, what I want you should do is make my neighbor's cow sicken and die."

    There's a reason that's a universal sentiment - if we can't have something, it's satisfaction enough that nobody else can have it either.

  18. Draft registration should be ended, but until it is, applying to everyone should be the goal.

    Take the example of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Had this been the "Everyone Exclusion Act" which banket banned all people from immigrating to the US, it would have been terrible policy still, but not racist. It also probably wouldn't have taken 60 years to repeal.

    Here's my prediction. If it stays male only, in 40 years it will still exist. If it starts applying to everyone, it will be repealed within 10 years.

    1. So when do Chinese Americans get reparations?

  19. Shouldn't women get to be president at least once before being drafted? Men have had all 46 presidencies so far. Women are a minority in Congress, SCOTUS, military generals and high ranking officers, C-level executives in the Fortune 1000. I.e., far from equal. It borders on taxation without representation.

    1. Shouldn’t women get to be president at least once before being drafted?

      No law has banned women from becoming president. It's just that the female candidates so far have been utterly awful.

      1. IT WAS HER TURN!

        1. Imagine a university position that turned down 46 conservative applicants to hire 1 liberal one. Conservatives would (somewhat rightly) be frothing at the mouth with charges of unfairness.

          I guess all the university has to say is 'all the conservative applicants were just terrible!'

          1. All your arguments based on this fictional idea of conservatives you have built up in your own mind.
            Since its pretty much the case, where are all the conservatives frothing at the mouth? Oh that's right, in your own mind.

          2. I can't imagine any university having 46 conservative applicants though.

          3. Whether it was unfair would depend in the applicants and the criteria.

            However, unfair or not, I think those conservative applicants are better off not attending that university.

      2. No sexism here!

        1. It’s not sexism to point out facts.

        2. Correct, no sexism here. Hillary Clinton, Jo Jorgensen, Jill Stein, Lenora Fulani, Cynthia McKinney, Linda Jenness, and Roseann Barr (did I get them all?) were awful candidates: socialists, racists, radicals, and/or simply unqualified.

      3. Tulsi was pretty good. Except on guns in Hawaii. And, she can be a bit weird on 'green' issues, and a bit immature. But, if we wanted perfection, we wouldn't have people in charge. Anyhow, she was head and shoulders above warren and harris. And miles above clinton. Jorgensen was also okay, but her acceptance of the black lives matter org's cultish bullshit versus just a 'libertarianism implies/if I am potus, I will improve civil liberties and rights for all' stance kind of sucked.

        1. And a lot hotter.

          1. +1 surfer women.

    2. "Men have had all 46 presidencies so far."

      Well that's awfully presumptuous of you to assume the gender of so many past presidents.

      1. It does seem possible to get an actual hernia from trying to be cute. You're pleased with yourself, but you can't to squats anymore.

        1. But isn't gender a social construct?

      2. Gender itself is a social construct. We've neither had men, nor women as president.

    3. Or we never let a woman be president, and they don't get drafted.

      So that could work...

    4. >, C-level executives in the Fortune 1000
      Private businesses y'all

    5. Why? The voters, not the government, pick the President. The voters can select whoever they damn well please and there are no Constitutional issues to them picking whoever they want.

      We haven't had an Asian President - should Asians be exempt from being required to sign up with the Selective Service? We haven't had (to my knowledge) a Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon President - should Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons be exempt from being required to sign up with the Selective Service?

  20. The best way to get rid of a bad law is to demand it be strictly enforced. There are currently no military roles that women are ineligible for, so if Selective Service is going to be a thing they can sign up just like the men have to.

    If there ever is a new draft, only men will be forced into combat roles anyways.

    1. Maybe. There are women like Kristen Griest, who seems to not be full of shit, grievance-mongering, doing the bare minimum to get by. She isn't making any friends among the field grades or GOs for calling them on aggressively lowering standards, and shying away from equality.

      1. Let me clarify, Griest is not a grievance-monger, and is an over-achiever. Poor punctuation.

    2. You just said there are no military roles that women are ineligible for. They will be assigned to combat roles as well.

      1. They will be assigned to combat roles as well.

        I sure hope so. Why shouldn't women be forced to confront the horror and death of war the same as men? That's what equality means.

        1. Can't wait for all the hand-wringing about women getting raped in enemy prison camps. Who saw that coming? (No pun intended.)

  21. Just preening. You can bet your bet your sweet bippy if the draft ever comes back the law will revert to males only.

  22. Remember, every few years or so the Democrats wistfully dream of conscripting post high school age people into government service for for a few years for their own good and to instill national unity.

  23. Women aren't being forced into conscription, they will just be required to register.
    The odds of another conventional war like WWII are zero to less than zero!
    And only in a massive conventional war would actual conscription be necessary!

    1. The odds of another conventional war like WWII are zero to less than zero!

      that's why we need more women in the military. We're trying to reverse these trends of the patriarchy.

    2. Notice that biggest bi-partisan opposition to Trump came from the warmongers on the left and right ("Lincoln Project" indeed.) Both sides want plenty of wars. The NYT and WaPo were lobbying to invade Haiti.

    3. Don't bet on it. World leaders now are as foolish as they were then.

  24. Serious question - Does anybody know how the current registration rules work for transgender men/women?

    If you're a transgender high school girl, do you still need to register at 18 based on your biology?

    If you didn't register because you were a cis-gender high school girl, but you become a transgender man in college do you then have to register to keep your student loans?

    1. Found the answer myself (

      "Selective Service bases the registration requirement on gender assigned at birth and not on gender identity or on gender reassignment. Individuals who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register.

      The legal authority is based on the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), which does not address gender identify or transgender persons. In addition, Presidential Proclamation 4771 refers to “males” who were “born” on or after January 1, 1960. Thus, Selective Service interprets the MSSA as applying to gender at birth because Congress did not contemplate transgender persons or a person’s gender identity when it required on “males” to register when the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was passed and amended by the Selective Service Act of 1948 to create the Selective Service System. Until Congress amends the MSSA or passes a separate law addressing transsexuals and gender identity, Selective Service must follow the intent of Congress when it required only males to register – the registration requirement is based on gender at birth.

      In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service if they receive an order to report for examination or induction."

      1. I know a few male to female xgender that want to join, and really like guns. Not joining to get 'free' meds and surgery. I also know of at least one male to female who's now out of uniform. Can't remember if she was male when in service, think yes. Also, really likes guns. They all concurred w/ what Jenner said, easier to come out trans than to come out libertarian, conservative, former military, anything but progressive in a culture dominated by intolerance for the out-group.

      2. More, contrary to xgender activists rhetoric, hormone therapy does require some degree of sterile and cool storage. For a vast number of forward operating locations, this is not feasible. Not impossible, but the timeline for injections will slide. If oral hormone therapy is prescribable, and requires no refrigeration, then this argument collapses.

        1. Oh, that's easily solved - these people will be put on the 'not-deployable' list and fill the stay-behind detachment while everyone else does extra duty.

          1. ...and still somehow get granted 100% PTSD disability after their 2 year stint.

      3. "Selective Service bases the registration requirement on gender assigned at birth and not on gender identity or on gender reassignment. Individuals who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register."

        Well that needs to change. Light the Woke Signal. I'm surprised Biden hasn't issue an executive order already.

      4. "Selective Service interprets the MSSA as applying to gender at birth because Congress did not contemplate transgender persons or a person’s gender identity when it required on males to register when the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was passed..."

        Tell that to Chief Justice Roberts. What Congress contemplated when passing a law is irrelevant now. If Congress passed a law banning discrimination based on sex, it doesn't matter if Congress hadn't contemplated that including sexual orientation, or even if they had contemplated it but left it out of the law because it wouldn't have passed.

      5. But gender isn't assigned.

        *Sex is recorded*.

        1. "*Sex is recorded*." Yes, it is. The government has cameras and microphones everywhere and you put them there. "Got 'Smartphone'?"

      6. Gender is not assigned at birth. The child's sex is observed and noted at birth. That the government is using that absurd construction is not a good sign.

  25. Get rid of this registry. We don’t need it.

    Given that so women can’t fight, shoot, pilot an aircraft, drive a vehicle, provide medical care, other critical support services. Any of these people ever met a girl?

  26. Women should be drafted. Not as warriors, but to breed the next generation of warriors.

    1. Topkek trolling, that.

      1. At any point in human history prior to 1945, this would be received as an unassailable truth. You assume I am a troll because even allegedly free minds are shackled to the lies of our age.

        1. I don't think you're a troll, or at least, I don't have enough information to make that kind of assessment. There's a difference between saying that what you've said is trolling and saying that you are a troll. Your comment, whether or not intended to do so, is going to get a rise out of any of the left/progressive resentment culture types that link in from social media or google, or hang out here to 'own the conservatives.' Thus, topkek trolling. If you did turn out to be a troll, that's fine by me, if you're informative and funny, you would be welcome here. Most of the trolls are humorless kneejerking partisan asshats who cannot argue, but can shift goalposts and make false assertions 24/7.

  27. It is not a perverse notion of equality simply because one disagrees; equality is an absolute and doesn’t depend on opinions. The emotional attempt to draw similarities between the proposed change to Selective Service and the Chinese Exclusion Act being open to other groups is a step up from the earlier ‘girldad’ attempt at authority, but still falls short. The Stop & Frisk policy point also does little to advance the overall argument. The entirety is, if not a false equivalence, so close as to be nearly indistinguishable. I say this, because beyond the poor rationales: there is no draft, no prospect of large-scale conflict in which registered women or men will be called -this is either a strawman or a bogeyman, choose one. Perhaps most importantly, the assertions that the cost or benefit (actual effect/opportunity) are made with no source data, thus are to be discarded. Being a parent and wishful thinking are not qualifying data for the assertions being made. That said, if one drops the 'oh, the poor wimmins' line of bullshit, yes, doing away with registration for Selective Service is not unreasonable.

  28. Practically nobody cares as long as there's not draft, and there's never going to be one again. That wasn't obvious 40 years ago when they revived SS registration, but it's clear now. It's just as Jerome Kaplan told me then: that the longer we went without a draft, the more unthinkable reinstituting one would become. So SS registration is just symbolic.

    1. There will be a draft. It will be to build the infrastructure.

    2. The very existence of Selective Service registration contemplates a draft. Whether you think it likely or not.

  29. So when was the last time someone was conscripted?

    1. My dad made me cut the grass and pull weeds most weekends. I would have almost preferred shooting at East Asian communists.

    2. Hey Dumbass!

      Every American male is required to register on their 18th birthday.

      That puts you on the rolls.

      1. It freaked me out when I got my notice. (1982) I figured I was going to
        El Salvador.

    3. I was conscripted for the first 4 months of this year to work for the federal government. They just spread it out over 12 months when they steal it from me in taxes.

  30. Updated Country Joe and the Fish song:
    "I Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag"
    Come on fathers throughout the land
    Pack your girls off to Vietnam
    Come on mothers, and don't hesitate
    To send your daughters off before it's too late
    And you can be the first ones in your block
    To have your girl come home in a box

    1. How funny you should bring that up. I used to play guitar with Barry "The Fish" Melton when it was he, Peter Albin on bass, Harold Aceves on drums and myself. [My wife was Lisa Kindred.]

      1. Well you gotta be up there, I was 11 in 67. I will have to look "Lisa Kindred" songs up, I am a huge blues fan but not familiar with her. I don't know if you were still married or divorced when she passed away in 2019, but regardless my condolences, you loved her.
        Still a big fan of blues singer Walter Trout (and the Free Radical) who was lead singer for Canned Heat back then. One hell of a blues guitar player.

  31. Leftist feminists who have been teaching that our constitution is a living breathing antiquated doc may soon discover the 13th amendment

  32. I can think of no subject that produces more inane and poorly thought out comments that the idea of female draft registration.
    The Fourteenth Amendment already prohibits disparate treatment of individuals, including by discrimination on the basis of sex unless such discriminatory law passes strict scrutiny that such discrimination in necessary, beneficial, and narrowly drawn. While women were barred from combat arms positions, and men were routinely drafted, there was at least some justification for not drafting them under our current laws because somebody had to carry a rifle, fire the artillery, drive the tanks, man the ships, and fly the airplanes.
    Since women may now enter any combat branch of any of the services that they can pass the training for, and since no draft is in effect, there is no continuing constitutional basis or justification for male only draft registration. There's not much reason for draft registration for women either, but an awful lot of us men have had equality, equity, set asides and quotaa for female business owners to the point that we've literally had a toxic gutful. You want equal rights and privileges? Then assume equal responsibilities, bear equal burdens, and pay equal "dues".
    Draft registration is pain in the butt and at present nothing more than a pain in the butt. Male only draft registration (with penalties for failure to comply) is still unconstitutional (a lot of what the government does really isn't in the Constitution except for the legal principle that the Constitution says whatever 9 lawyers not overly wedded to truth or text say that it says. If women are going to get equality, equity and especially set asides and quotas, they can damn well do some bleeding and dying to earn it. This is not to say that having females in infantry battalions, or armored divisions, or Navy ships (especially submarines) is a good idea. Plainly, it is not. But we've passed damnfool laws that disadvantage men to the point that a helluva lot of us would now respond to an actual male-only draft now with, "Hell no, I won't go unless she does too!!". And an actual draft, and service in combat arms, and getting only men blinded, maimed, or killed - feeding only males into the meat grinder - will not fly any more with 18 y/o males who've had gender equity stuffed down their throats for the past 12 years. A definite side benefit would be that the idea of sending 18 y/o women into the meat grinder would greatly inhibit those who too easily and freely "loose the dogs of war."
    Our servicemen (yes, I said servicemen) have fought, bled, and died since 1946 more "in furtherance of national policy" rather than in actual defense of the nation. There's a lot of history that isn't in the history books about WWI and WWII that indicates our national leaders at the time did not send young men into the meat grinders with clean hands then, also.

  33. I was of the opinion that Reason headlines could not get worse then Doherty's 'barely legal teen' silliness, which was at least humorous. This hyperventilating and histrionic 'on the Verge of Being Forced Into Military Conscription' is hyperbolic dishonesty on a level that is rarely seen here except in the paid trolls' shilling.

  34. Women Are on the Verge of Being Forced Into Military Conscription Due to a Perverse Notion of 'Equality'
    Expanding government-imposed burdens to new classes of people is a bad idea, unless the goal is equality of immiseration.

    Oh, its perverse now. Let me tell you what's perverse - the idea that there are classes of people.

    Get rid of the draft or extend it to everyone. I prefer the former. And maybe the latter is the only way to get it gone.

    But, FFS, these people have been bitching about wanting total equality, right? That's what women want, right? Its not that they want the privileges that come with full access to society but none of the bad shit.

    They want the right to be a lobster-catcher but don't want to have to deal with working in the cold and wet and on dangerous decks so they'll stay below and cook - but you had damn well better pay them like a full deckhand?

    Equal pay for equal work and all that.

    1. Expanding government-imposed burdens to new classes of people is a bad idea, unless the goal is equality of immiseration.

      That's the end of the progressive tax - flat tax FTW!

      1. I've been for a "Flat Tax" for a few decades now. I'd say 10% would be fair. after all, "If it's good enough for God, it should be good enough for Caesar".

        1. Here is the problem with a flat tax. Soon it would not be 10%, but 12%, and then 15%, and then 30% and then 50%. The government needs to quit spending, then flat or graduated, taxes would be less. Yet the Socialist want to take every dollar, and decide what you get back in government services based on their benevolence. That will be based on your prior economic status, sex, race and prior political party support.

    2. You nailed it. They want the glory without the sweat.

  35. "Women" (speaking in the general term) have wanted "equality" for years. Getting it means they would be subject to all the things that men have traditionally had to do, which includes possibly serving in the armed forces. This could very well be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

  36. The thing you seem to fail to understand is that it has nothing to do with liberties. The whole point is that women have fought to be able to join combat arms MOS's and should therefore be treated rhe same as their male counterparts. The draft, is at times necessary to protect our country. We can argue all day long weather registering for the draft when it is not being used is a good thing or not, but the reason females were not included in the draft registration before was because they were not eligible for actual combat positions. Yes they at times ended up in combat but not because our country put them there. IMO, they have no place being in combat arms positions, but if they are going to be there, they need to be treated just like the men. They can't have it both ways. I am a disabled VET, and when I was discharged, even though I had 7 years active duty and was considered unable to do anything in the military. I had to register for the draft. That is what makes it stupid. As a career military member, all they had to do was recall me if I was eligible, but to put someone on the rolls that wouldn't be brought back in the first place is a perfect example of government at it's best.

    1. "The thing you seem to fail to understand is that it has nothing to do with liberties."

      It has everything to do with liberties. If your liberties were at truly stake the nation wouldn't have the luxury of indulging in pointless culture struggle posturing.

      Have a look at this brave warrior:
      Do you really think her male comrades resented her and insisted she be treated like a man? No, they had bigger fish to fry.

      1. Sophist, you have no idea what her position was. She may have been a photographer's model, a comfort woman, an officer's wife -there's nothing to suggest she's a fighter. She's well-fed, her clothing is clean and in good condition, the rifle is likewise in good repair. From this one can surmise that the photo, beyond the obvious, being for propaganda purposes, may be entirely bogus. But, it's still effective, decades later, since you present it as some sort of proof for liberties of which you rarely speak in support.

        1. "From this one can surmise that the photo, beyond the obvious, being for propaganda purposes"

          You're only saying this because it's a photo of a woman. And that you can't conceive of a woman (or a man, for that matter) fighting to free her country of a foreign invader. Your idea of military service is obviously nothing more than a means to obtain a government subsidized education.

    2. The draft has never, in all of American history, been used to protect the country.

      Its certainly been used to protect *other* countries though.

      1. CCR Fortunate Son:
        "Fortunate Son"

        Some folks are born made to wave the flag
        Ooh, they're red, white and blue
        And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief"
        Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord

        It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
        It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

        The draft protects the rich and politically powerful people's children. So much can still be learned from the 60's and 70's.

    3. "... women have fought to be able to join combat arms MOS’s..."
      No, they really haven't. A few select individuals have, but collectively women fail or refuse to shoulder that burden. When given the choice, the overwhelming majority refuse, according to multiple surveys. Here are two:
      Those who "want" combat invariably choose pilot or medic--jobs which allow quick escape or are far behind the actual fighting and usually the first to bug out.

    4. Not once in the past 120 years has the draft been used in the actual defense of our nation. Instead, the draft pulled us into the quagmire of WW1, was used in WW2 during the defining mission that turned the US from an isolationist nation to a globalist one constantly meddling in the affairs of other countries. Our rights were also not under dire threat in Korea or Vietnam, but tens of thousands of impoverished young men were pushed into the enlisted ranks for those wars, while the sons of senators got deferments and rear echelon officer assignments.

      Women having fought hard to get into combat MOS doesn't make expanding the draft a suddenly acceptable outcome. Some women are capable of meeting the standards for combat MOS roles but, by and large, the military simply dropped standards to accommodate women for the job. Women were failing out on key components of the Army's ACFT. Many inside the Ranger community will attest to the fact that the standards were dropped for the first women to pass. The first female Green Beret already has a negligent discharge under her belt. There are numerous indications women in combat roles is a product of loose standards and affirmative action efforts rather than simple merit.

      Now, if women were actually meeting the same standards their male counterparts were (prior to gender integration of all MOSs) then there would be an argument that women should be treated the same as men. But the current argument for now drafting women is based on a lie.

  37. After Selective Service registration requirements were reinstated in 1980 Gloria Steinem was asked if women should be included. She said since women had suffered oppression, no, they should not be required until equality, etc. was achieved.

    1. So nice to know men haven’t experienced oppression.

    2. Women and children first.

    3. "since women had suffered oppression, no, they should not be required until equality....was achieved"
      This is a logically unmeasurable state of affairs. It is only feasible to measure whether inequality is either large, or is not large. It is impossible to measure anything else. The same is true for oppression: it is impossible to measure when oppression has been eliminated. The problem is that political hacks understand this all too well and know what they are doing. This is a huge con and many people fall for it.

      That isn't to say that inequality doesn't exist, merely that as an issue, it is used primarily to con people.

  38. When it comes down to it women never wanted equality.

    They want a double standard "equality": to be given all of the privileges given to men while not having to take on any of the responsibilities of men.

    The "wage gap" arguments perfectly highlight this. Women choose jobs (on avg through the population) and career paths, on average, that have less hours, are less physically demanding, less dangerous, and as such they on average make less money. The argument for equal pay puts forward that they want to keep choosing career paths that are easier, less hours, less dangerous, more time at home on average than men, but still make the same amount regardless. It is a selfish, childish position to take.

    1. " It is a selfish, childish position to take."

      You misconstrue. It's an anti-capitalist take. Feminists reject the notion that markets should determine the value of someone's contribution to society, a view you evidently embrace.

      1. If markets don't do it then 'Top Men' will. And where do you find these 'Top Men' to pass judgement on your worth to society?

        IME, everytime its left to a few individuals to value a person's contributions, millions of people end up with a bullet in the back of the head.

        1. So I'll stick with the 'impersonal and cold' market's decision, thank you.

          1. "And where do you find these ‘Top Men’ to pass judgement on your worth to society?"

            In Canada or the UK, for example, you can find these top men in parliament passing legislation for paid family leave. If you think that millions are being shot in the back of the head in these countries, you need to think again. I assure you it's not the case.

            "So I’ll stick with the ‘impersonal and cold’ market’s decision, thank you."

            You're obviously not a feminist. Feminists disagree with the market's decision that women are of less value to society.

            1. You will probably find few feminists here.

              The market doesn't decide that women are worth less. It says "you get X amount for working this job...if you work 40% of the hours at this job you will make 40% X."

              The feminists make the childish argument that its not fair somebody made the choice to have a baby AND doesnt get the benefit of full time salary, plus time off of work. Jane decided not to have babies. So she works full time and gets 100% of X pay at the job. She gets no maternity leave, because she has no kids.

              Is it fair for someone who has 3 kids, over the span of say 5 years, to get 3-6 months paid leave (probably the minimum feminists would accept, Germany I think its a year?) for each child? You are talking more than an entire calendar year, at least, off from work while Jane, with no kids, is at work that whole time. You think its fair that the lady who decided to have a big family gets all this time off and should also get 100% of X pay? That would be "equal pay" after all, as this is one of the main factors in the wage gap.

              The problem is, as stated above, these feminists dont want equality. They want special treatment. They want to make every dollar that a man (or a woman that works full time) makes while also getting time off to have kids, child care, part time schedules etc. The bad bad market isnt causing this, people's personal choices are what causes it. This is yet another leftist, "why cant we just use the govt to force some people to pay for other's personal decisions / responsibilities"

              1. Germany and other places are not at replacement level of births. Fearing being overwhelmed by foreigners they incentivize motherhood. We import immigrants from poor countries. The net is that Europeans are slowly going extinct.

              2. "This is yet another leftist, “why cant we just use the govt to force some people to pay for other’s personal decisions / responsibilities”

                Again with the millions shot in the back of the head obsession. In Canada and the UK, the parliaments were elected more or less fairly and squarely by the citizens. They could have chosen other representatives who promised to follow the dictate of the market forces you are so enamored of to punish child bearing women, but they chose otherwise.

                "Jane decided not to have babies. So she works full time and gets 100% of X pay at the job. She gets no maternity leave, because she has no kids. "

                But Jane voted for paid family leave in any case, as did her sisters in Canada and the UK.

                "Is it fair for someone who has 3 kids, over the span of say 5 years, to get 3-6 months paid leave"

                Fairness has nothing to do with it. If that's what the voters want, that's what they get. It's called democracy, rule of the poor.

                1. You must be tired from moving those goalposts so far.

                  Good to see you cant argue the merits so now we have arrived at "the voters wanted it so it doesnt matter". Tony level arguement.

                  What if voters decided to overturn the civil rights act? Hey, its what the voters want, fuck it right? Lets not busy ourselves analyzing if that is a good / fair thing to do.

                  1. "What if voters decided to overturn the civil rights act?"

                    Take a civics course. Learn yourself about the Supreme Court and its functions and doings. Meanwhile, take comfort in the fact that millions of Canadians and Brits aren't being shot in the back of the head as you believe is an inevitable consequence of a anti-market policies like paid parental leave.

                    " Lets not busy ourselves analyzing if that is a good / fair thing to do."

                    The world is an unfair place, and whinging about it won't change that.

                    1. "The world is an unfair place, and whinging about it won’t change that."

                      Ill make sure to keep that filed away for my response to the "wage gap", BLM, the need for affirmative action, reparations, health care disparities, etc.

                      Hey, shit aint fair, get the fuck over it, make more money and you can have everything you want. Or dont, no skin off my back, the world isnt a fair place after all.

                    2. Canada and the UK are only at the beginning of their decline: social unrest, systemic racism, speech controls, demographic collapse, economic decline, etc.

                      Give it a decade or two and the summary executions will follow.

                      Family leave, of course, isn’t the primary cause, it’s a symptom.

                    3. "Ill make sure to keep that filed away "

                      It's legislation that brought paid parental leave to places like Canada and the UK. Not whinging, not pseudonymous comments on an internet forum.

                    4. It’s legislation that brought paid parental leave to places like Canada and the UK.

                      Yes, and it's contributing to the decline of the middle class, long term unemployment, and demographic collapse in those countries.

                      All outcomes you apparently like.

          2. ^

  39. Matt,
    Is it "equality" or is it not? Women want "equality", but they still want the door held for them, the guy to pay the check, the guy to lift the heavy boxes and etc. etc. etc.

    So what is it?

    1. Matt has 2 daughters. Hence his continued support for discrimination.

    2. The guy lifts the heavy boxes because he can. The first through the door should hold the door for the person coming after them, not let it slam in their face, whether the person coming after them is male or female. Use common sense.

  40. If it isn't unconstitutional, why not?

    1. The very concept of a "draft" is absolutely unconstitutional, and has been since December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the 13th amendment. The entire text:
      "“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.”

  41. I wore the uniform for 20 years and we had this conversation often. When confronted with the simple question, "What will it take to compel young women to register with Selective Service just like young men?", the women typically got hysterical and said "I raised me right hand..." etc. But that was NOT the question. Voluntary enlistment/commission is a completely different issue from compulsory registration, which is the case with young men 18 - 25. No woman in or out of uniform has ever objected to that in my lifetime, except in response to women having to meet that same standard--it goes from total silence to "nobody should have to!" the moment their life, limb, eyesight and freedom are threatened.

    1. Remember .. These guys wanted two years of mandatory service for young people.

      They also want to deconstruct the military, with anti-racism and trans activism.

      They would love to put 50% women in the military form top to bottom. Purely for ideological reasons. The purge is already underway. And the military controls hundreds of billions. That is a lot of power and money.

  42. TLDR: Two wrongs don't make a right.

  43. Matt must have little to do...No citizen has been drafted since 1973..a better use of Reason space would be to urge, No One be forced to sign up for a draft. save a couple of hundred million.

  44. Females didn't care to complain about it when it was only for young guys, but now that it's for females they think it's outrageous. Y'all taking an L for making a big deal out of it now

  45. I'd have my daughter sign up for the draft just to shut up all the obnoxious incels who say women shouldn't have equal rights because they don't sign up for the draft. Little girls like the one shown aren't going to war, only 18 and above.

  46. There certain things government can compel citizens to do, like jury duty, draft in times of war, and paying taxes. SS might be coercive but it's (I assume) is not unconstitutional.

    Welch is sort of dodging the issue by simply arguing for the repeal of selective service. If the country was ever invaded, the government would have no choice but to draft soldiers. Do you draft just men, which was the status quo? Because men are more physically capable and optimized for battlefield conditions? Women might be needed at home take care of families, and work in the economy? We should protect the morale of the male soldiers, which will drop like a rock if their sisters, mothers and wives were cut down on the battlefield?

    If you recognize basic differences between the sexes, then you're ok with a male only draft. If a woman bumped into a shelf and all the heavy objects fell on the floor, there's nothing "sexist" about a man offering to pick all of that up on their behalf. That's just harmless chivalry. But if you're on the other and obsess over "equality" to the exclusion of ALL ELSE, then you should have no moral objection to mixed drafts.

    Remember the kind of people you're dealing with - BLM praised the Cuban government AS they were cracking down protesters. In their minds, it's ok for a government to hang people like dogs on a tree for listening to wrong kinds of music, as long as it's not racially motivated. And if a fascist government condemned western racism, your sins are forgiven, even as they herd ethnic minorities to death caps on their own soil.

    If you're a woke feminist, then you should shut your mouth as you're dragged off to war or a corporate board with all transgender members celebrate "inclusion of more women in corporate spheres". I don't have a problem with making these pe0ple play by their own rules.

    1. The rationale that few women were suited for combat roles was always bunk. There's plenty of MOS's women are perfectly fine for, and the few who can pass the combat standards should be able to do that too.

      Men can take care of children and the economy too.

      1. I dont mean to be an a$$ but really. Im not saying that all men are incapable of taking care of children, there are plenty who do and can with grace and aplomb. But I would say about 98 percent, if you were to say take these 5 kids to the zoo (ranging in age from 2 to 16) the dude would come back bawling, hair akimbo if not completely bald, freaking out and desperate to never do that again. Its not like I think in general they are incapable, but I wouldn't want to throw a newbie into a King Crab harvesting situation either. Most men, were never taught or have experience doing on a daily basis what women LEARN to do from the time that tiny sea creature comes out of their bodies. They are not Born knowing what to do "they may have experience from family or babysitting" But mostly it is a day to day learning, every moment with them just like any job. Thank goodness they come out small and moving slow. Im also not saying a woman is incapable of fulfilling battle situations. My Mom was a WAVE "for you navy pukes" in the 70s that got pregnant twice and never left active duty. It IS possible. But a FAMILY has to figure out how to take care of the little rug sharks. Both of my parents were in the military. Daycare, responsibility to home and children, were tough. He was stationed at sea for 9 months at a time and there was NO Internet to call each other. It is Possible, but in no way preferred by parents, by children, by any medical or physiological team. So instead of making it about men vs women and how they should be equal, how bout making around Families and how that should work out.

  47. There wouldn't be enough support for ending the draft now, and the quickest way to *get* that support is to make it so you can't have a draft without both men and women; but for that threat to have teeth, you actually have to start registering them.

    Letting perfect be the enemy of good will just let this stagnate in the status quo for decades to come.

    1. Well an even quicker way to not have a draft is to make it so the recruitment lottery starts at the top of the financial brackets and works its way down, with no exemptions for anything short of being fully paralyzed. But that's never going to be possible because of who writes the laws. An all sexes draft might be (yes, all, no exemptions for intersex people).

  48. Where have the smart people gone??

    Who really thinks this is about equality for women? Why would you think that?

    These people have quite aggressively Abandoned equality for equity.... Yet you gullibly believe that they suddenly picked up a mission for equality... On a topic exactly zero people have been concerned about.

    Everything up is down in their world... Yet our great minds take this at face value?

    They just defended teaching white guilt at the pentagon. They have undertaken ideological purges in the military and throughout the federal government. They even have a military occupation of the capital and the capital police just got an extra 2 billion to extend their reach to the whole country.

    But we are just going to take this at face value.

    The same guys who fight misinformation by telling Facebook what to censor, yet the president tells us that you won't get corona virus if you get vaccinated. (tell me again, how many vaccinated Texas democrats caught it? ).

    Surely you guys are not dumb enough to really take this at face value and argue the merits of the draft as a response? Tell me you are smarter than that.

  49. It's time women accepted more personal responsibility and gave up their role of pampered, perpetually oppressed princesses.

  50. I guess Reason doesn’t have any men’s rights activists. Keep chopping off parts of your babies’ penises so they experience less pleasure, man-haters.

  51. Gotta blow up the patriarchy...disgusting how men put women and children first.

  52. Another one...

    How is actual equality in action a perverse notion of equality? Making things even is not a perverse notion of equality.

    Obviously your actual point is “get rid of the draft”, but your emotions prevented you from staying focused. At the state level, conscription/drafts/militia/etc are part of the foundation of America. The federal military is separate from that as it came later and was viciously opposed by most. But forcing women to register is equality. It is fairness. It is balance. Especially since women are the majority of the population.

  53. We went around on this one when the Equal Rights Amendment was looking for ratification, and at that time it was resoundingly rejected, by the women!

  54. That is a ton of comments to read, but if it has not already been addressed, and not that I think this is a good idea at all, "" "" "" sense is not sexism... sorry, woman are not looked at like 2nd class citizens because the govt cant force them "yet" into war zones. And if they are, against their will, will it cause more problems..... yes

  55. This isn't just the product of a perverse view of equality. It's also the product of a military bureaucracy that less than 10 years ago knew women were typically not meeting the same physical and performance standards as their male counterparts in combat arms roles, but lied to themselves and everyone else, relaxed standards and opened up all combat billets to women. Had the military not told itself women on average were meeting the same physical standards as their male counterparts were before gender integration of all military roles, this wouldn't even be a conversation. SCOTUS previously ruled there was no gender discrimination in a male-only draft because women couldn't be expected to fill combat arms roles. After the military lied repeatedly to get women in combat roles for purely woke social experimentation, the reason for the SCOTUS precedent that women couldnt be drafted disappeared. SCOTUS had the opportunity to rule earlier on whether or not women should he drafted. Taking a case would have given SCOTUS an opportunity to consider the morality of a draft in general, but Biden told them Congress was already going to address the draft legislatively. SCOTUS passed on issuing a ruling and the Biden/Neocon Dems plan is to just force women into the same unjust and unethical draft system men were already subjected to, rather than get rid of it altogether. Just about everybody lost in this round. SCOTUS lost credibility. Women lost out on their freedom. Libertarians who are principally against the draft lost out on doing away with this unjust system. Biden lost out on an opportunity to do some unmitigated good for this country. Feminists lost out. I think the only ones who won here were the military industrial complex leaders who have a whole new 50 percent of the population they can throw into the meat grinder when they push for the next war.

  56. Don't bet on it. World leaders now are as foolish as they were then.

  57. Not a "perverse" notion of equality.
    It's time women had to bear actual responsibilities instead of living the lives of pampered princesses while shrieking in rage at men -- who are required to take care of them.
    Make them actually DO something.

  58. It needs to be expanded to those of all the other "genders" as well

  59. Sign here dear. We're all equal now.

  60. Maybe the people on Wall Street who steal far more money than street criminals should be shaken down. But I'm sure you libertarians can find out some way to argue that private companies stealing tax money from the government is actually a free market.

    1. The "free market" has only existed in certain areas until the rulers got around to eliminating it, e.g., taxes, regulations, eminent domain. It has never existed in principle, only as a desired goal to be sought after secession from rule by King George. The replacement govt. was still using coercion, an elite who ruled by force, threats, fraud to protect rights. The means betrayed the end.
      Taxes are stolen money, immorally controlled, spent by an elite, for the elite. I have never complained my stolen money is being stolen. Is that even possible? The robbers (govt.) don't believe in property.

  61. The slaves were "freed" by converting private ownership into public ownership, public being the govt., e.g., politicians, bureaucrats, LEOs. Now they are equally enslaved (taxed, regulated, ruled under "law & order"). Children can be taken from their caretakers (parents) at the whim of their owners, the govt. Pre-Civil War slavery was slaves owning slaves. Lincoln simplified the slave system.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.