They can go on the front lines.
They can go on subs.

They get all the benefits, but do not have to register for the draft.

Equality right?

Who is currently required to register:

"Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, foreign males between the ages of 18 and 25 living in the United States must register. This includes permanent residents (holders of Green Cards), refugees, asylees, dual citizens, and illegal immigrants."



[Edited on March 22, 2013 at 12:39 AM. Reason : kkkk]

3/22/2013 12:38:54 AM

they'll surely get that straightened out

btw the potential to "get that straightened out" is what caused the Equal Rights Amendment to lose steam 30 years ago

3/22/2013 12:54:51 AM

Isn't this a non-issue unless we actually turn to using the draft again? I imagine that with the sequester, we're trying to cut our numbers and not add at the moment.

3/22/2013 7:03:50 AM

I would support this, there is no reason to not do this

3/22/2013 7:05:36 AM

^^so why do men still have to register?

3/22/2013 7:29:55 AM

Congress hasn't gotten around to changing the law yet: It's much easier for the Secretary of Defense to promulgate new regulations than for Congress to pass a new statute; the ban on women in combat was not set by statute but rather by regulation, while the requirement for men exclusively to register for Selective Service is by statute (50 USC 451 et. seq.).

Actually, the end of the ban on women in combat will make it more likely for Congress to revise the SSS statutes, because it appears to render Rostker v. Goldberg (the Supreme Court decision ruling the exemption of women from the draft Constitutional, relying on the combat exclusion in its reasoning) moot.

3/22/2013 9:01:38 AM

Quote :

"Isn't this a non-issue unless we actually turn to using the draft again?"

It's a symbolic issue. That's not really disputable.

There's almost no incentive for change. If the issue actually made it to a lawmakers desk, they very well might propose to eliminate the draft for men as opposed to extending it to women.

3/22/2013 9:22:59 AM

I can't think of much worse, morally, than forcing people to go fight and die against their will. If anyone other than the government did it, it'd be the plot of a "Saw" movie. A free country doesn't have a draft.

[Edited on March 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2013 9:31:59 AM

At the risk of invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, South Korea, Israel, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Estonia all have conscription (Israel even conscripts women) and are generally regarded as having high levels of freedom (some greater than the US).

[Edited on March 22, 2013 at 9:56 AM. Reason : I mean an active draft, not mere registration for a potential future draft.

3/22/2013 9:56:13 AM

And they'd be a lot more free if they didn't have a draft. If there is a cause worth fighting for, then people will fight. If there isn't, they won't.

3/22/2013 10:25:55 AM

The draft is awful. Mandatory registration for selective service is awful. The fact that man have to do it under penalty of imprisonment and women do not is also awful. No feminist worth her salt could possibly support this continued inequality.

Changing this law would take, literally, seconds. Just attach it as a rider to any spending bill. There can't really be any objection to it, can there?

3/22/2013 10:39:49 AM

depends on if Obama supports it or not

3/22/2013 10:51:37 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/15/rangel-selective-service-women/1923631/


Found this article. Good read if you are interested. It is from Feb 15th. Apparently an Act has been introduced already.

Quote :

"That's exactly what Rangel, a Korean War veteran and senior member of New York's congressional delegation, wants to happen. He has long maintained that the public would be less inclined to send American soldiers into battle if there was a universal draft instead of an all-volunteer army. If women were also subjected to the draft, the reluctance would be even greater."

3/23/2013 1:11:09 AM

I never understood this kind of stuff

Quote :

"He has another proposal, the National Universal Service Act, which would require young adults to perform two years of national service either in the armed services or civilian organizations such as AmeriCorps."

stunt everyone's career by 2 years? huh?

3/25/2013 8:20:17 AM

if everyone does it, why does that matter?

3/25/2013 8:30:58 AM

^ that's is a truly baffling statement.

That means that the next nanotech pioneer spends 2 fewer years on their life's work. That's 2 less years working to cure cancer, solve our energy problem. I'm not worried about the impact on the individual, I'm worried about the impact on society. If everyone in the nation produces 2 fewer years of work, then our economic product is that much less.

What could you even mean by saying if everyone does it it doesn't matter? If everyone destroyed 2 years worth of value then in what sense wouldn't it matter?

3/25/2013 9:27:55 AM

those people will get exemptions, mandatory service will just be for poor people and minorities

3/25/2013 10:03:03 AM

Well, poor people create economic value too, but obviously the idea is nonsense if people with bright career prospects get exemptions.

3/25/2013 10:27:33 AM

wars ad economic value too

3/25/2013 11:08:03 AM

If you want mandatory conscription to work right, you have to draft everyone and tightly control exemptions to prevent people from avoiding mandatory service, publicly shaming anyone who tries to get his or her child an exemption. In Korea for example, it's a public, front page scandal for a public official to have a child who avoided service through a loop hole. Men who don't do traditional military service, legitimately or not, are usually ostracized (as conscription has kind of become a "right of passage" for males) or weak (as disability is usually one of the reasons you don't do service). There are other exemptions to partially tackle the "intellectual waste", they allow people in select scientific and engineering fields to complete their service with a five year period working for Korea's equivalent of DARPA or NIH.

That being said, I don't see any reason we should have mandatory conscription. It's extremely expensive for one thing. Think of it this way: you have 60 million people roughly between 18-35. Assuming you drafted everyone, that would be a good 6-7 million conscripts in service. That is a LOT of people you have to absorb into the Federal government, many of which aren't going to have the narrow skillsets that a modern government needs. In addition, that's a ton of money that the DoD has to spend training and equipping them. If you want to be really cynical, believe it or not, all those generals, instead of spending billions to train up a bunch of riflemen, would rather spend that money on other things, like shiny, overpriced fighter jets.

3/25/2013 11:31:47 AM

mandatory conscription? what is this shit?

[Edited on March 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM. Reason : IBdtral posts a definition of mandatory conscription/]

3/25/2013 11:55:30 AM

don't worry about it, you probably don't meet the physical requirements

3/25/2013 12:57:21 PM

I'd choose prison over conscription.

3/25/2013 1:01:28 PM

Conscription is bad but if it must be done then it must be equal, otherwise it's just another way the patriarchal culture here reinforces itself. Men are conscripted because they are seen as the strong protectors, and they are seen as strong protectors in part because they're conscripted.

3/26/2013 10:11:42 AM

Not really arguing with the central points, but how is that "patriarchal"?

3/26/2013 10:44:21 AM

Everything wrong in the world is part of the Patriarchy™, even when it is essentially only fucking over men. Didn't you know?

[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2013 10:51:12 AM

An all-female army would be infinitely superior.

3/26/2013 11:45:24 AM

[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM. Reason : apologize, DP]

3/26/2013 11:45:55 AM

and killer on that time of the month

3/26/2013 11:49:54 AM

Quote :

"Not really arguing with the central points, but how is that "patriarchal"?"

It's just men being expected, by merit of being men, to selflessly serve and protect the entire nation from outside threat. If that's not patriarchal, what is? Patriarchy isn't just "A man is President", it's a cultural structuring that places men in key roles and ascribes to them key characteristics to maintaining society, with women serving as secondary support.

Quote :

"Everything wrong in the world is part of the Patriarchy™, even when it is essentially only fucking over men. Didn't you know?"

Patriarchal gender norms in particular fuck over men all the time. That's why it's taboo for men to show emotion or enjoy a whole range of "feminine" activities, are expected to work and not be house-husbands, get shafted in a lot of custody suits because they're also considered more aggressive, independent, and less nurturing, and don't forget child support because they are the breadwinners after all. All of these extend from gender norms that dictate men be the powerful head of society, both in the large (nation) and small (family) scale.

Patriarchy restricts all people, not just women. Not all men are responsible for it, it's more of a cultural inertia that keeps it going, so if you're a man you shouldn't take it personally when someone complains about it. The only people who are to blame are those who are aware of it but contribute to its perpetuation anyway.

This is why "Men's Rights Activists" who blame their child support payments on Feminists are fucking retarded and have everything ass-backwards. That's not some bull dyke Feminist delivering his sentence, it's a judge who grew up in the 50's when REAL men provided for their families and women stayed home to care for the children, god damn it!

Quote :

"An all-female army would be infinitely superior."

At the very least studies have shown they have superior multi-tasking abilities and so tend to make good officers.

[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2013 12:07:50 PM

Quote :

"What could you even mean by saying if everyone does it it doesn't matter?"

It's not stunting a career because there's no competitive advantage lost between Americans. That is, it wont destroy your resume since it's on everyone else's resume too.

Quote :

"If everyone destroyed 2 years worth of value then in what sense wouldn't it matter?"

It'll also create tons of value in people who would have spent those 2 years in a McDonalds, and I'm sure such a program would probably include stuff like research work and other things that are not digging a ditch in a third world country (that adds tons of value as well).

And, seriously, 2 years isn't shit. All the careers of people who are 18 now will probably last a few years longer anyway from advances in medicine anyway.

[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2013 12:25:30 PM

Quote :

"If that's not patriarchal, what is?"

male privilege?

Quote :

"it's a cultural structuring that places men in key roles and ascribes to them key characteristics to maintaining society, with women serving as secondary support."

Those are gender roles. You can't be a patriarchy without male-favoring gender roles. Privilege isn't about maintaining society, it's about running society, and benefiting from it. There's nothing privileged about doing all the work.

3/26/2013 12:26:10 PM

You have no clue at all what you're talking about at all, dude.

Quote :

"There's nothing privileged about doing all the work."

All the out-of-home work, that is. And it's quite privileged, because the entire society is aware you do all the work, and if you apply for a job to do the work, you're sure to get it if the other applicant is a women.

You seem to think patriarchy = "Male wonderland where all men are treated like kings." Perhaps if you understood the truth (it's a model for society based on men being the primary maintainers, that places gender norm-based restrictions on ALL people) you'd understand why many men call themselves Feminists.


[Edited on March 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2013 12:28:35 PM

The patriarchy sounds awfully specifically like the 50s

3/26/2013 1:45:26 PM

i'm fine with mandatory service in the military and females being entered into the draft.

i think part of the reason that we, as a society, as so indifferent to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we don't have to serve. less than 1% of the population serves in the military, and i think that's a major problem.

3/27/2013 10:43:10 AM

Quote :

"It's just men being expected, by merit of being men, to selflessly serve and protect the entire nation from outside threat."

I'm just a little confused how a societal norm that requires that we serve as meatshields for women and children or be completely ostracized, is caused by our patriarchial culture. Even if it was women calling the shots for thousands of years, our sexual dimorphism still would have led us down this path. Being a meatshield isn't a "key role".

I'll buy that there are a lot of drawbacks thanks to gender norms, but these being the result of patriarchial society (and therefore will be completely eradicated when feminism is "complete") I don't buy.

Quote :

"Perhaps if you understood the truth (it's a model for society based on men being the primary maintainers, that places gender norm-based restrictions on ALL people) you'd understand why many men call themselves Feminists."

I don't get why you don't just call yourself a humanist, if male/female parity really is the goal. Feminism smacks of trying to gain the privileges men have benefited from historically without the cost men have had to pay historically.

3/27/2013 11:01:06 AM

Quote :

"I'll buy that there are a lot of drawbacks thanks to gender norms, but these being the result of patriarchial society (and therefore will be completely eradicated when feminism is "complete") I don't buy."

This get to the issue I have trouble with. Feminism should be against gender norms period. It's about equality, so fine. No gender norms are acceptable. Pigeonholing either gender hurts both genders.

Quote :

"Feminism smacks of trying to gain the privileges men have benefited from historically without the cost men have had to pay historically."

I don't buy that, because feminism isn't monolithic. Feminists who ignore the selective service issue, for instance, are idiots. But there are feminists who don't.

3/27/2013 10:24:26 PM

disco_stu said:

Quote :

"Feminism smacks of trying to gain the privileges men have benefited from historically without the cost men have had to pay historically."

I don't know which knocks me on my ass more: your implication that all feminists are women or the galling amount of privilege in that post, the ignorance of which led you to seriously invoke the cost, oh, the cost men like you have had to pay!!1

3/28/2013 7:17:08 AM

There are things for which we pay a collective cost. I don't know that it makes sense to say that a cost was paid on an individual basis. We all benefit from veteran's service in historical wars. There is a risk cost to selective service, but you don't directly feel risk costs in your life.

Men have about twice the mortality of women, even in healthy years. I don't know that this is something that needs to be "fixed", although there's certainly nothing honorable about it. I'm sure FroshKiller had a point too, but he was too busy with cryptic condescension.

3/28/2013 8:41:42 AM

^^I wasn't speaking individually or about myself when referring to the cost men have had to pay historically. I thought the word 'historically' was a pretty good indicator of that. I'll accept your first "knock me on my ass point": it was awkwardly worded. Change "trying to gain" to "trying to allow women to gain the benefits without the cost".

^Also, yes I was generalizing feminism. I guess I should have said 'gender feminism and even then there are probably people who identify as 'gender feminists' that don't exactly apply. Apologies.

Quote :

"Feminists who ignore the selective service issue, for instance, are idiots. But there are feminists who don't."

Totally get this. There are definitions of feminism that I would agree apply to me (equity feminism for instance).

[Edited on March 28, 2013 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2013 9:13:21 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Indeed they do try to make a dichotomy. As usual, however, the frog is confused.

Quote :

"In contrast to equity feminism, Sommers coined the term "Gender feminism" to describe what she contends is a gynocentric and misandric branch of feminism. Gender feminists typically criticize contemporary gender roles and aim to eliminate them altogether."

So the "bad" form of feminism is the gender feminism. But yet this is the form that is non-permissive of modern gender roles. If you're in the "equality" camp, then you should be against gender roles. This has it backwards! Even in the very next paragraph, it goes on to characterize gender feminism as "all women as victims" feminism. That's a gender role.

I return to my former hypothesis. There's no real defined body of views that characterizes the "bad" kind of feminism, just some people talking shit who haven't thought it through.

3/28/2013 10:11:07 AM

I'm an (equality) feminist like I'm anti-slavery or pro-marriage equality. If you aren't an asshole, these things should be a given, but they're not particularly noteworthy or radical. Being a guy taking a self-pic with a "I need feminism because..." sign and posting it on Tumblr screams, "Please believe me! I'm not a misogynist or a rapist, I'm totally harmless, accept me!"

The default position for males isn't rapist. I'm not going to apologize for the actions of other men or for being a man.

I think we're at the point where being male isn't clearly a privilege. Imagine if:

-The majority of baby girls had part of their genitals torn off at birth, justified by, "men think it's aesthetically more pleasing"
-Over 98% all death row inmates are women. A man is executed every 30 or 40 years.
-99% of military combat deaths and injuries are women

This would be outrageous. No one would accept it and everyone would point to these facts as an obvious injustice.

[Edited on March 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

3/28/2013 10:11:34 AM

I thought the reasons for male circumcision were religious or (misguidedly) medical, rather than æsthetic.

Also, I think the reasons for the first two statistics are that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of deadly violence (the patriarchy send the message that it's okay to settle disputes with violence and that the only acceptable emotions for men to have are anger and to a lesser extent fear) and that the great majority of service-members are male and until recently, women were formally barred from combat.

3/28/2013 5:27:48 PM

Quote :

"I thought the reasons for male circumcision were religious or (misguidedly) medical, rather than æsthetic."

A)Think again. B)Even if it were the case, what difference would it make?

Quote :

"Also, I think the reasons for the first two statistics are that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of deadly violence"

What does this have to do with the likelihood of a man getting the death penalty vs a woman? Also note that men are more likely to be the victim of violence than women.

Quote :

"and that the great majority of service-members are male and until recently, women were formally barred from combat."

Again, your point? The system has been designed to use men as expendable shields and no one cares. (and for certain special people, when I say "no one" I don't mean absolutely not a single person anywhere).

[Edited on March 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2013 9:02:04 PM

why did male circumcision start if it wasn't religious reasons? people justify it because of medical reasons, but it was a religious practice that then became a more broad social/cultural practice.

3/29/2013 12:28:03 AM

It did of course start as a religious tradition but I would be willing to wager if you polled modern Americans that do mutilate their boys their reason wouldn't be religious or medical, especially considering the "medical" reasons are horseshit based off of horseshit studies.

3/29/2013 1:23:13 AM