BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW’s primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between our sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.
-The National Organization for Women’s official position on women and the draft, adopted in 1980 and never changed.
I agree with NOW. Abolishing selective service registration (SSR) > both sexes being made to register for the draft > status quo.
But when it comes to what ordinary citizens can do, I think it’s especially important for us to push and argue for abolishing SSR. Because when SSR is made gender-neutral, it’s probably not going to be because of ordinary-level activism; it’ll be because someone wins a case at the Supreme Court. ((It could also happen in Congress. But since the Republicans seem strongly against it – Marco Rubio recently flip-flopped on his support for equality in SSR, I assume in response to pressure from the GOP base – I don’t think it’ll happen in Congress unless the Democrats hold majorities in both chambers.))
In Rostker v Goldberg, in 1981, the Supreme Court, ruled (quoting Wikipedia’s summary):
In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote “[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration.“ … Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause.
And that’s how it’s been ever since. But the Obama administration announced the end of restrictions on women in combat this past December. The logic of Rostker v Goldberg no longer applies, and there’s no reason a equal protection lawsuit against selective service registration couldn’t succeed. In fact, an 18-year-old girl in New Jersey has already initiated such a lawsuit.
It seems likely that sex-neutral selective service will happen without needing much help at the grass roots. Abolishment of SSR, in contrast, probably can’t happen without popular support.
At the same time, it might be easier to gain political moment against the draft if women are forced to register. As much as it’s taking advantage of sexist attitudes, the thought of seeing “daddy’s little girl” forcibly sent off to get shot and die might just be what’s needed to get the draft abolition movement over the line.
I certainly think that solider’s should be paid a fair market value for their labour and the risks that they accept as part of their duty. If you don’t get enough soldiers for your war, then clearly you need to start paying more. If that means going to war requires taxing a few billionaires into poverty and having veterans wealthy enough to retire when they return home, then all the better.
Maybe I’m naive, but I think there are plenty of ways an anti-draft movement can succeed without having to deliberately leverage sexist stereotypes (and in the process helping extend their hold on society) to do so.
I have been known to say that my two sons are no less valuable than anyone else’s daughters. This does not mean I am in favor of a draft; I’m in favor of nobody being drafted, but if the time comes when we are actually fighting a war that needs to be fought – something which has not happened in my lifetime – the burden should at least be spread as evenly as possible.
I admit that once, after having spent too much time reading about World War One, I expressed the opinion that maybe everybody should be drafted: men, women, the elderly, two-year-olds, everybody, and maybe that would stop people having useless wars. I do not actually hold this view, and frankly it seems wildly optimistic to me now.
Ledasmom:
You certainly could make an argument that the family of people who vote in favor of a war should be the first to be drafted…
Or, in the face of the argument “what did the family members do to deserve that?” that the people voting for war must, themselves, immediately be drafted and posted to a combat position.
Grace
But Grace, why would we risk those intellectual titans on the front lines?
Those worthies must be treasured and nurtured, so that they can land on carriers flying “Mission Accomplished” banners, or enrich posterity with lines like “We came, we saw, he died”, when the targets of their actions die from being sodomized with bayonets.
Pesho, perhaps there could be a provision for 48 hours of recorded grandstanding, to be played later as appropriate, if the combat postings somehow mysteriously turn out to be hazardous?
Grace
Just as a strong general rule, please avoid making rape jokes on “Alas.”
“Draft registration” has existed for more than 30 years, and people sometimes see it as a symbol of patriotism, or a symbol of government control, or a symbol of equality. “The draft” is something different. (Noteworthily, the draft does NOT exist, and has not existed for 43 years. Furthermore, the last time the US had a draft, we drafted people who had not registered for it.)
One problem with Grace and Pesho’s arguments is that “the draft” doesn’t mean sending people out into uncomfortable and dangerous situations. The military wants people to DO stuff. These days, the military wants reliable people to do fairly skilled jobs, working in teams that can trust one another. That works a whole lot better when they have well-trained volunteers; plenty of volunteers, so they have the option of throwing people out if they turn out not to be suited to the work.
As far as I can tell, the military doesn’t really want to bring back the draft. They started shifting towards an all-volunteer force even before Congress abolished the draft in 1973. Their current training program is for volunteers with a certain level of education, fitness, and desire to be there; they like it that way.
Adrian:
Until they need it to be otherwise.
I turned 18 the year they started Selective Service Registration, so I am one of the first group of men who had to register. This was 1980. Viet Nam was not such a distant memory and the rhetoric surrounding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was sounding more and more like we might end up sending soldiers into war again.
I remember very clearly walking to the post office to mail in my filled-out application. It made me nauseous to think that the piece of paper I held in my hand would make it possible for the government to call me up to go kill people. I was not opposed to the idea of the military, and I was not a pacifist, but the thought of taking someone’s life, of being compelled to take someone’s life, made me ill.
GlobalPost: Qaddafi apparently sodomized after capture
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Ampersand, what rape joke?
This was a recorded quip by a high profile US politician, in response to their antagonist being killed. I would not swear that the politician was aware at the time that the killing involved a bayonet up the rectum, but that has been since established.
Sorry, Pesho. I expect Barry thought you were being hyperbolic. That’s… pretty terrifying.
(General note: I believe women should be subject to the draft.)
Pesho, are you referring to Gaddafi? I’m fairly certain I found the right death-by-bayonet, but I just wanted to make sure. Googling that sort of thing without knowing names is both delicate and extremely depressing. (There were many similar results.)
You got the one to which I was specifically referring, Sarah. Although I expected people to google “We came, we saw, he died”, not the bayonet. As you noticed, there are way too many of the latter.
And yes, Mandolin, it is pretty terrifying. You know what is more terrifying? I like the alternative less. A lot less.
Pesho – I stand corrected. Sorry for misunderstanding.