The only reason they were not required to do so in the 1980's is because they could not be assigned combat duty.

women should not be subject to the draft.

That's kinda like saying anti-miscegenation or anti-gay marriage laws should have been allowed to stand until the Constitution is changed to prevent them.

of equal treatment for women.

The only thing that would guarantee that is the ERA. But when we tried to pass it we were told that it would require women to be drafted -- so it wasn't passed.

If women don't have equal rights, they shouldn't be subject to the draft. Otherwise, we're giving up the only leverage we have.

Doesn't make much sense. Any gender biased law that persists provides justification for any other gender biased law. You are looking at this as some kind of zero sum game of men vs women. Repealing any gender biased law is a strike against gender based discrimination. That was the whole point of the ERA and unequal draft registration was the central issue from the very beginning.

which will be grossly unfair.

Now that they've lost the war with gay marriage, they've shifted to transgender rights. That will be their excuse for to passing the ERA.

...instead of a reason to keep them. So long as gender inequality is allowed to persist, it will persist, which works to the detriment everyone regardless of gender.

Let's pass a doggone ERA, too, while we're at it.

We need to get real about equality for ALL.

And if the unthinkable happens, and we go to yet another world war, women should be required, as males have been in past conflicts, to register for the "Old Man's" draft (which would have to be renamed) to have a list of people to call upon should we be in desperate straits requiring specific skills or in a "fighting house-to-house" scenario.

They did this in both WW1 and WW2.

https://www.newberry.org/old-mans-draft

Otherwise we lose what little leverage we have.

who need special snowflake consideration because they are "weaker" is an argument used AGAINST the ERA. If this law is already passed, and women are sharing in the risk that war brings, that argument is obviated. See, the real "leverage" is already behaving in an "equal" fashion with regard to responsibilities--and now the demand is for the RIGHTS to go along with those responsibilities. It makes it harder for them to say NO.

and I vote for reinstituting same...

or is this supposed to be sarcastic

edited to add irony, if there was any irony

Only applies to males.

thought OP said draft

pedantic and such

It's so ingrained that when you get to high school or get your license as a young adult male you don't even think about it.

Women are exempted from it (and I think it's possible to get an exemption for males but it's a pain in the butt; they don't even exempt disabled men, even if you can't fill out the form, if you can believe it).

If you fail to register in the 18-26 year window you're screwed.

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties

more registering.

That's the whole point.

It seems to me something major is just around the corner and they need as many people as possible.

Here in South Korea men are required to serve two years in the Army. Those who for some reason can't go into the Army are given an alternative service (working at a local or district office, driving a truck or car, etc.). I've had many conversations with my male students about their experience. Some have said it's not too bad, some said it was awful.

So back to the question, which is essentially: IF there was a draft, should women be required to register. My answer is yes. I feel that it is wrong to ask (well really force) one gender to serve their country, but not the other. I have argued this with my students in the context of South Korea's mandatory military service.

What I would rather see is two years of volunteer service required prior to the age of 25, which in turn would be used to help offset the cost of college. The service could simply be an expansion of Americorp.

um , you didn't even put the ...

you typed three words

"volunteer service required"

words have meanings

Certainly I think providing service to your country can be done in many different ways. The military isn't the only one. I think if it were mandatory military service there would be too many who object to it. Give those in the program a stipend and pay for college. Which would be worse, paying off college in two years through a program like this or paying for 20+ years? If I had a choice I would have chose the former.

There are still very real penalties for not registering. That burden should either be shared equally or it should be eliminated.

Men shouldn't have to register either.

If there is ever a need for a draft then there should be enough people to volunteer to go in to it.

the EU (assuming they build up a military) we're going to have to use the draft.

...than than a draft would solve.

I'm against involuntary servitude in whatever form it takes. Registration is the first step towards loss of personal sovereignty.

I'm not opposed to people volunteering to go in the military but they should be aware of the risks. With 1/3 of the women in uniform being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers, I'm particularly against women being drafted. The risk to their personal safety, above whatever combat risks there may be, is simply unacceptable. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/military-sexual-assault-defense-department_n_1834196.html)

And yes, I have a 20-year old granddaughter. Long ago I told her I would lock her in a closet before I would see her in the military.

Love your last paragraph.

Whether your granddaughter wants to join the military it should be her choice. It's at the very least amazingly hypocritical of you to take that choice away.

as long as it exists, then yes, it is now time for women to register as well.

If all MOS are now open to males and females then it is only fair that both sexes now must sign up at 18.

If there is a draft in the future, yes, women as well as men need to both be tapped.

If you demand equality, then you must suffer the consequences for it either positively or negatively.

And there should be a law that wars have to be PAYGO. Not only for the war itself, but for every single expense, including future VA benefits for the veterans the war will create.

we've never had a female president and we are OVER HALF THE POPULATION

And half of them are stupid.

sexism is extremely insidious

If a woman wants to run for office she must prove she is worthy. She shouldn't garner a vote just because she's a woman.

but you cannot say sexism has had nothing to do with the fact WE'VE NEVER HAD A FEMALE PRESIDENT

American- but my child would be an Italian citizen too. If I had a girl and the rules applied to her - then yes.

My younger brother and sister in law were born in the US and went back to Italy when they were very very young. Antonio as an American did not HAVE to do mandatory military as my husband and his older brother did in Italy. However at 18 he DID register for selective service in the US when he registered to vote. They both (the to younger siblings) own a rental home each in The Bronx my in laws purchased for them prior to going back to Italy. Antonio's girls are two and five and have their US citizenship even though they were born in Germany. Those girls would have to register - correct? If my nieces can be used as "skin in the game" - then yes. Women should have to register too.

racial minorities are -- I don't think they should be drafted.

First equal rights. Then equal responsibilities.

I come from a military family - you can see pics of my mom's dad with Eisenhower at the end of WW II. My dad was one of the first Green Berets. Dad was black. Was the desegregation of the military by Truman the opening for the second Civil Rghts movement? M father thought so. Are we perfect yet? Nope.

My bead is on a Paycheck Fairness Act. If this opens the door to EQUAL pay regardless of gender - which military pay does . . .

Will more women just say - my debts aren't being paid because I don't get paid enough to live? Would/could we have a week without women workers? Shut down the country until they give into basic decency and respect? We would potentially create a generation. Of women who say -

You pay me like a cheap bastard s I'm going to tret you like one?

Go back - can we DEMAND a Paycheck Fairness Act and ERA or get a movement together where we hide our girls until they give in? They can't throw every single woman of age in prison. They can't. Physically they cannot.

We could throw one hll of a sucker punch a Conservatives (male and female) and tht narrow group of liberal men who only show up for us when there is something in it for them (sexuality, birth control, abortion do they can have sex without consequences) IF they do this to our daughters.

I can also see with the new black Civil Rights movement underway - black men showing up for us on this. No more "modernizing of the military" until you do right in America for minorities and women.

I always think beyond today and tomorrow - what are the ways we can leverage this to stick it to the MRA women hater types?

The deadline passed over 35 years ago. Making things contingent on the ERA is like demanding one gets a childhood pet back.

I support equality, true equality, and think a new amendment could pass today. In my opinion, what killed the ERA, other than the southern states, is the notion that sex based protections should continue to exist. Sex based protections such as not being required to register for the draft.

So if we want true equality, rights and responsibilities happen at the SAME time.

I've read in many places where the selective service system has compiled a few lists of medical professionals. It's ready to go in case there is a shortage of doctors in the military. The age groups range from 20 - 45. Women will be included in this draft unless congress specifies otherwise.

Yes they should be fully included. It's time.

And if there is some kind of Paycheck Fairness Act dr those women when they leave.

They could potentially be giving up prime years for marriage and children so they will need the money to take care of themselves as a single income earner when they are older.

It's only fair. Their male counterparts can have kids at 35, 40, 50 etc etc. They can't. We take away their prime years we better give them something in return!

You turn 46 and you're suddenly chopped liver?

We old farts still have the same skills we had at 45, and if it's medical duty, not fighting, we're still going to be able to perform them.

They will fill most of the needs with younger folks first. If It is a unique field and nobody fits the bill I'm sure they'll come knocking for the 46-50 crowd too.

It might not be your question, but because there shouldn't ever be a draft, and change to the existing system should always to make fewer people 'eligible', not more.

and I don't want to see women have to register for the draft. I sure don't want any of my loved ones in the military. One of my Aunts joined the army shortly after pearl harbor and stayed for the duration of that war. I don't think she was a nurse but I really don't have any idea as to what she did.

It would open up the entire discussion about our insane war habit. If parents of girls think parents of boys don't mind having their sons register they should think again. It was a very notable day in our family.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I really don't know how a nation will react to thousands of women being drafted and killed in battle.

Maybe it would make the nation less likely to go to war in the first place.

I realise that's sexist, but I'm talking about current perceptions of men and women.

If drafting women is what it takes to wake our apathetic populace up then I'm all for it but only after women are treated equally as embodied in the ERA.

The reaction would be instant and disproportionate outrage, of course. But for some reason, observing that americans value women and girls lives more highly is considered controversial.

This simple fact explains almost all of the observations that we collectively call institutional sexism. The pay gap? the college gap? the cost of healthcare? The wealth gap? The suicide gap? The lifespan gap? All are symptoms of that one cultural bias.

Just this male veteran's opinion.

No registration for anyone. No draft. No war. WTF? Is this the same democratic site that opposed the Iraq war?

First of all, it will take more than an ERA to achieve true equality. It won't work like an instant magic spell. More women entering the workforce didn't change things overnight and it's still a work in progress. It won't do a thing to address the underlying societal problems that contribute to inequality. All adding women to the draft would do is appease those who think feminism isn't needed anymore, and at best they'll just see this step as more proof of their position. They're usually the same people who don't see issues like income inequality. Women in the draft won't make things more equal, because it isn't that simple.

Second, I'm against the draft to begin with, so it makes no sense to support an action that would add to the numbers. I don't understand why some who generally view the draft negatively are supporting this position.

If she's pregnant when her number is called, should she be required to...

Prove she didn't get pregnant to avoid the draft?

Prove she was pregnant before her number was called?

Be forced to remain celibate until she reports for duty so she can't get pregnant?

Be forced to abort?

Given the option to abort?

Be forced to deliver then put it up for adoption?

Be forced to deliver then continue on the current path in place?

Are the rules the same regardless of her marital status?

Who pays for it either way?

Should she be stationed state-side during the pregnancy after which the infant is...property of the USA? Is her pre-natal and post-natal care now covered under military benefits? Is the baby sent to a special location for children of drafted pregnant women? Just throw it into the already sadly lacking and almost non-existent safety-net currently in place?

Is there a set time between the birth and her reporting for duty on the front-line? Is the time involved determined by best medical knowledge or politics?

If she suffers post-partum depression, does the military pay for treatment? Does the women? Or do we send her straight in after some wink and a nod to mental health screening like we do with men?

Do we introduce a new area of coverage in an already, republican impoverished VA system?

Women have been in the military for over 50 years, and yes, some even got pregnant, and it seems to work out.

We're talking about a draft. Different kettle of fish.

We're also talking about combat; something women were "kept from" in "official" assignments. Nurses and support staff coming under fire wasn't deemed worth of combat pay or points; as a couple examples.

It's also true that women in the military who became pregnant were discharged due to their pregnancy. Pregnancy was generally an end to their military career. With perpetual war; I'm not sure how today's military is handling that.

We have just made a major gain in equality. Let the dust settle from that for a few years so it will be less easily reversed. THEN wake up and say oh, right, I guess women should be registering for the draft, too. (assuming the current registration requirements stay in place for men).

Actually I am in favor of universal national service instead of a military draft. National service could include many activities, not just military service. Tweak the incentives for demanding, hazardous, or otherwise undesirable activities (such as military) over more highly desirable activities (such as park service or teacher's aide), in order to keep the military force at the needed levels. You would still need a draft in the case of a national emergency, say if World War 3 breaks out, but all the infrastructure would be in place and you wouldn't need a separate registration. Of course, that is all a pipe dream because it would require so much money and time to institute, and taxes would have to be at the right level to support it.

to tie a 14 year old female to her rapist by forcing her to have the child produced by the rape and then sharing custody for the life of that child with the man who raped her then I would say no fucking way. Stop trying to enslave us with draconian laws about our bodies and then we will talk. Stop not paying us equally, stop all of the bs that is shoved in our "pretty little faces...come on smile for me" and we will talk.

Set us free and we will talk. Until we are sharing this country with equality I say hell no.

Actually nobody should have to register, we should get out of the business of war.

With that last comment I must say I see none of these things coming true in the remaining years of my life.

my partner because we are in our early-mid 30s and if we come to blows with Russia soon any time I think we could still be called up.

The draft never has been all that effective throughout history and is far less so in a time when technical competence is far more valuable than the ability to hump boxes of ammo up a hill. Even in wartime the best way to get troops is simply to provide better pay and benefits to volunteers. If we ever again get to the point where we need to rely on a draft, we are all truly fucked.

which is why I said if we come to blows with Russia, the EU (if they build an army and fight us, for who knows what reason) or China we will be fucked and need a draft.

And we absolutely would in those scenarios. Keep in mind the US "only" lost 400,000 in WW2 whereas the eastern front of WW2 netted 5.5 million german/allies dead and 8.6 million soviet union dead. We would need a draft to sustain those types of losses.

WW3 will sadly make those numbers look like child's play too.

A 5 million man army matters far less today when it can be utterly destroyed by a much smaller force.

There's two things that have to happen before a draft is the least bit viable. One is you have to be in a war of attrition where troop strength actually matters, and two is you have to be in a situation where the country is unable or unwilling to offer enough incentives to attract enough volunteers. Both of those situations are pretty remote and if they are realized we are all fucked whether we're in the military or not.

mop up operations after the bombs are dropped.

And when casualty rates are low, it just isn't that hard to attract enough people.

mop up the losers. Many of them are not current soldiers or those who want to volunteer. Many current soldiers and would be volunteers will die.

There are cities in the US which are statistically more dangerous to live compared to any mopping up operation in the history of the US.

There are a few historical exceptions like in the height of combat operations during WW I or II, but outside of those your chances of being killed are quite low and may even be lower compared to not being in the military. As such it just isn't that hard to get enough volunteers so long as the incentives are high enough.

manpower to either keep the winners out or to make the losers surrender.

Again keep in mind each of Germany and the Soviet Union lost about 10% of their population in WWII (civilian and military). That's insane and dwarfs anything America has ever been in. But it doesn't mean the US won't eventually be in something just as bad, if not worse.

I can tell you've never been in the infantry.

Try capturing and controlling any urban area with your high technology there, Major. Large numbers of infantry and other ground combat arms troops will be needed in any large-scale future war, unless nuclear devastation is the ultimate goal. In full recognition that it was unjustified, the invasion of Iraq was a colossal fuck up, due to insufficient ground troops. The mission there was never accomplished, despite the aircraft carrier preening of the idiot emperor. Iraq was, in fact, a small scale war and any future conflict likely could be much larger.

We have how many major military powers bombing the fuck out of ISIS right now? How many millions of pounds of bombs on North Vietnam? Your analysis is lacking, Major.

I support universal service and a draft, if needed, without all the bullshit deferments and exemptions that rich folks use to avoid service.

FYI - combined arms task forces (you know, the units that fight our wars) are put together under the command of a combat headquarters, such as infantry or armor. All of the other moving pieces, such as intelligence, engineers, air defense, often air and naval assets are under the command and control of the combat headquarters. So, guess who plans, controls and is responsible for all ground and air operations in a war like Iraq? That's right - the ammo carriers! Combat arms commanders are the only ones overall responsible for combined arms operations. For example, you don't see an intelligence officer or an aviation officer in charge of a task force. In the task force command post, you will have single liaison officers from the smart people like signal and aviation, but all of the planners and operations people are ammo carriers. So, ammo carriers actually plan, conduct and oversee all the big operations. IMO, that gives the ammo carriers pretty good insight into military operations. Much moreso than some asshole at an air base 200 clicks to the rear.

As far as conscription, the U.S. and major nations have done it many times in the past. According to the CIA Factbook, 64 nations currently have mandatory conscription. Every major war the U.S. fought prior to and including Vietnam was fought mostly by draftees. An opinion that conscription is impossible is uninformed. It can be done and should be done absolutely fairly regardless of last name or income.

And yet still you are no closer to explaining why conscription makes the least bit of sense today in the US and why the same thing can't be accomplished with the same all-volunteer force. Prior to WWII, the US didn't have a standing army to speak of, and Vietnam is not exactly a shining example of why conscription is a great idea.

And Selective Service should be expanded to cover medical, education, or some other form of national service call-up list (infrastructure repair, a Mars project, etc...), not just "sign up to go to war". Everyone's skin should be in the game, if we're all to be citizens.

Haele

I'm not entirely certain either of my sons, now 32 and 28, ever registered. I don't recall ever seeing pieces of mail arriving that would have indicated such.

I'll have to ask them.

Fair is fair.

Equality means just that.

However, the same laws should apply to everyone regardless of sex or gender.

the idea of a draft is barbaric. If reinstated, those drafted should refuse to go.

If you start trying to draft young women, the likely result would be a massive upsurge in late teen/early twenties, unwed pregnancies.

It's an "out" that women have access to and men don't. Just a basic fact of biology.

There is absolutely no reason we are more willing to sacrifice our young men. Personally, I don't think we should be sacrificing anyone to war unless it is CLEARLY to defend our nation.

women are capable of the same responsibilities.

I get the point about the ERA.

Which is why they should also have to fulfill the same expectations.
As a male you are required by law to register for SS, even if the penalties, which includes up to imprisonment, are rarely enforced.
As a male citizen or a male applying for citizenship you are considered at the age of 17 to the age of 45 part of the militia.

There is no reason, including the lack of an ERA, to ignore women in these requirements or definitions.

I honestly don't believe many who advocate for an ERA understand what that would mean.
Every federal program which gives aid in the form of grants, loans for women and minorities would be susceptible to challenge under that law.
Affirmative action programs for women and minorities would cease to exist.
Tax incentives for hiring of certain groups, including veterans, women, minorities.

never heard of the thing with the militia to age 45. What is the statute that says that?

Presumably the ERA would mean we didn't need affirmative action, but I doubt it's that simplistic legally.

From sss.gov site
Unless Congress changes the law, women do not register. I think they should, but there is no requirement.

Guys who don't register for the draft, don't go to college.

This bit of institutional and structural sexism, which about 1/3 of DU apparently agrees with, is one of the primary reasons that so few men go to college.

It used to be only a couple states, now most have this reg. Don't register for the SS, no drivers license.

Rich boys can just blow off the registration, as they do not need financial aid.

Other boys, who need student loans and Pell Grants, have to register.

We can thank a long dead asshole Congressman, Gerald Soloman, for that law.

The military has proven incompetent in preventing female volunteers from being raped by their fellow service members. And male volunteers for that matter. The notion that anybody should be forced into that servitude and risk is morally reprehensible.

The 2 things are related but are not the same.

Imagine fighting in WWI and WWII and living in segregated units while fighting to liberate other people from oppression. Only to come home and face that same oppression here.

yes, equal rights should also mean equal responsibilities.

If we are opening those roles up to women now, then that Supreme Court argument will become void.

If a man refuses to register with the Selective Service, he can't qualify for financial aid for college, he can't get a government job, he can't get a driver's license, and by the letter of the law, he could be prosecuted and put in jail. Women face no such restrictions or demands from their country to serve.

The U.S. has not prosecuted anyone for not registering in 30 years.

As for the driver's liscence policy, that is up to individual states. I don't know how many do that.

The policy of withholding student financial aid and government jobs was brought to us by the now dead Rep. Gerald Soloman, a sterotype macho dude, military, law and order Republican.

It is a class-biased law because rich boys can just blow off the draft registration, Mommy and Daddy pay for college, and few rich people end up working for the government anyway.

they should face the same laws and penalties men face.

When you say men should be treated one way and women another way...that's creating a division based on sex. We tried the "separate but equal" crap concerning racism after the civil war. It didn't work out so well.

while still suffering inequality. That sure is fair.

How about we just get rid of the draft. That way those with a tit-for-tat mentality can be satisfied because apparently there's no convincing some people that a draft will not magically make things equal.

was brought back in 1980. My older brother had to register that year. At that time, the military was looked down upon by many. The only reason you joined was because you either were not smart enough or could not afford to go to college or other schooling.

All that is required is a SSN and address at the time you register. There is, as far as I know, no requirement for updating the mailing address. Besides which, we are in so many databases, and everyone has a SSN for working, that it simply makes no sense for there to even be a Selective Service. This is one agency that I would feel good about eliminating. The money could be spent on new mops for janitors in federal buildings or something. The same thing can be done by someone else, should there be a need to, and there is no need for anyone of us to register, since they have our info already.

But I echo the sentiments of others, until women have TRUE equal rights in this country, they should not have to register. Because fuck the sexist system. No equality, no service. (Also, it would be a good idea to do something about the hideous sexual assault rates in the military.)