National Service and Drafting Women

[Phoebe]

We had a discussion about this and it turns out I'm the only bad feminist who doesn't think it's a good idea to draft women, ever. But mark my words, those of you who are either Democrats or want to defeat Trump, I may be a bad feminist but I am far from the only voter who really hates the idea of making women register for selective service. If we had something more like a national service requirement for everyone - which by the way, fine with me, though I know the libertarians consider it about one step short of actual slavery even though one assumes they're okay with a military draft, so why is this so different? - I'd be fine with having women register. But when we only would start relying on selective service registration in a dire time of war? No way. There are plenty of jobs women would need to be doing in our society if we got to that point, and plenty of women would volunteer to be in the armed forces just as they do now. Why do we need to make them register?

Every argument I've heard for this boils down to something like "this is what equality means", and I point out to you that life is very much not equal in this area, and it starts but does not end with birthing babies. If anyone can convince me that women and men generally enjoy the fruits of great equality such that it's fine to have women drafted, go right ahead, but we cannot even offer basics of health care, contraception, and child care to women in a reasonably equitable fashion compared with men, so it's going to be an uphill battle to make that argument stick.

[El Jefe]

Selective service is very likely a relic of the past. The military command structure has made it clear on a number of times over the last three decades that they have ZERO interest in having drafted soldiers. They will never perform or measure up to the level of training. Additionally, our entire doctrine of war has changed from one of direct for to one of force projection (multiplication of force through technological assistance and combined arms operation).

Setting aside a level of global breakdown that pretty much spells the end of civilization as we recognize it, or new needs found in a scenario where we are rapidly off the planet...registered for selective service or not isn't going to matter a great deal.

[Tahlvin]

Yes, I think Selective Service should go away for all genders. But then again, I would also like to see America get out of the constant state of war it's been in since 9/11.

[Stan]

Yea, I see a draft happening only in a post-semi-apocalypse situation. In a serious war situation, there wouldn't be time to draft and train people while it's happening.
Sure women could be in selective service. But it's such an academic issue that I don't think it's worth having a big fight about it in congress.
How about a year of service - military/peace corps/public works/parks for X amount of student loan forgiveness? The military already has options for this but it could be expanded.

[Tahlvin]

I don't like the idea of mandatory service, but service of some sort (military or otherwise) in exchange for education/training would be a good idea.

[Mike]

[Kyle]

[Phoebe]

[Phoebe]

This is a separate issue and reason not to push this policy for political reasons: even if it were totally philosophically and politically just, it is a dead loser of a public policy right now for whichever party supports it. I guess the Silver Lining is that people might get rid of b******* identity politics feminism and get back to biological essentialist feminism.

[Bonefish]

In the event of a war massive enough to require a draft to supplement our considerable all-volunteer force, baby bursting(I agree, it's too hilarious not to use) isn't really an issue. Such a war would be one of an existential nature, and those babies will not be able to wield bamboo spears or rifles for atleast a decade. Therefore, it'd probably be a moot point to insist that the women stay home: you need every swinging dick and tit on the front line to keep things a going.

A good historical example of this is(WAIT FOR IT HAUZE!), the USSR in ww2. Prior to the surrender of 8th army at Stalingrad, the stakes were so high and the outcome so uncertain that women were used in a wide variety of combat roles. Well, mostly "support" roles such as air defense, but they suffered lots of casualties and free'd up Ivans for the infantry. After Kursk, a lot of those female battalions were demobilized and sent back home, where they worked in factories or fields to provide for the war machine, as the war shifted from one of survival, to the constant strategic push against the Nazis.

[Phoebe]

If it is true that the only kind of war for which we would ever need a draft is some risk of total annihilation, and the presence of women through a draft could make the difference due to sheer numbers, then fine, draft them since the alternative in this hypothetical is apparently that we all die. But are we sure that's the main reason for which we would ever need a draft? I'm not able to predict which kinds of war would require which kinds of personnel, or are more or less likely to occur.

The Russian example above is not like this, since there wasn't a mandatory draft of all the women, and the existential threat didn't literally require everyone to fight.

Finally, I am really glad that bursting caught on with you.

[Bonefish]

It would have to be some form of existential threat. Anything less would make draftees less efficient than volunteers. There is an upper bound on how many people we can air or sealift to a theater. I am not sure what it is exactly, but it's probably low enough that relying on volunteers would be a better option than sending draftees. Through-out history, volunteers have had greater morale than draftees, and if you're going to be sending people across the sea, you want them to be well motivated, hard-chargers.

Also, the nature of our military is such that we have less need of bodies, and more need of skilled technicians. It's simply too complex of a system to stuff bodies into it willy-nilly. Garbage in, garbage out, and all that.

[Phoebe]

If that is true then I have less objection to having women register. Could be this is the result of me not knowing much about what the actual military functions are nowadays and what is required for the job. A better way to put it would be that I don't think it's appropriate to require women to do physical fighting and labor that would otherwise interfere with the physical demands that child-bearing places upon them. Not all women have kids, or choose to have them at that point in life, and some women are excellent at physical fighting and would volunteer to do it already. The issue is when you force all the women into this, given that they are already being forced into a world where completely unfair demands are being placed upon them due to their ability to bear children plus other sexism, and given that many women choose to have kids and want to have them precisely at the times they'd be eligible to be drafted. The burden of unfairness it creates is just over the top.

It's interesting that we see women forced to be in the military in rather unusual places: North Korea (not the example we're trying to imitate, I hope), Israel (where they do see themselves as facing an existential threat that requires full participation, where women are exempted fully for anything having to do with child-bearing, and where despite disputes over sexist practices, especially in the religious context, women enjoy an enormous degree of equality and support for child-bearing), and Norway (known for being in the forefront on gender equity, and fully supportive of women's needs surrounding child care et al.). Unless we want to be like North Korea, I would say registering for the draft is unfair until we reach at a minimum Norway-like standards of gender equity and Israel-like conditions of military need.

[Bonefish]

I think it's reasonable. Selective Service is a joke, anyway. We're most likely never going to need it. Unless Canada invades.