[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Anna Quindlen: Women Should Also Be Required to Register for the Draft
posted by Scott on Sunday October 28, @01:27PM
from the draft dept.
The Draft Neil Steyskal sent in another story, this one about the draft. To me the most interesting part was her good summary about the recent history of the draft, and why a constitutional challenge to the all-male draft probably won't hold up this time, since women can and do serve in combat positions today. It's an excellent article.

Source: Newsweek [magazine]

Title: Uncle Sam and Aunt Samantha

Author: Anna Quindlen

Date: November 5, 2001

Spousal Killings of Men Decreasing Significantly | Court Absolves Mother of Kidnapping Her Children  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
This article proves the draft is unnecessary
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 28, @02:11PM EST (#1)
As this article pointed out, women are already serving in combat positions. This negates the need for a draft. It is simple math. For every woman serving, one less man 'has' to. Plus, the potential enlistee pool has been doubled.

Meanwhile, enlistment offices report a huge surge in voluntary walk-ins. Patriotism is at an all-time high, which makes this trend likely to continue.

I don't think anyone can argue that an involuntary draftee makes a better soldier than someone who actually wants to be there, especially in this particular war. My greatest fear regarding the draft revolves around enraged draftees, hellbent on revenge at the country and government that drafted them, going to work for Osama Bin Laden, therefore giving him operatives WITHIN OUR OWN ARMED FORCES. The next terrorist act might not be committed by Ahab Arab, but by Private Johnny American.

The goal should be to open all combat positions to women and destroy the draft completely, not to expand it and open us up to terrorism within our military.

This is a new kind of war that cannot be fought with old thinking.
a few things to notice
by plumber on Monday October 29, @12:14AM EST (#2)
(User #301 Info)
While the article points out the obvious discrimination against men, it treats the issue as one of women's liberation. It never questions how society values men, the social context of the ideal of "women and children first in the lifeboat", male socialization and violence, etc.

Instead, we get idiotic feminist chest pounding. Consider these these lines from the article:

-------
It is possible in Afghanistan for women to be treated like little more than fecund pack animals precisely because gender fear and ignorance and hatred have been codified and permitted to hold sway. In this country, largely because of the concerted efforts of those allied with the women’s movement over a century of struggle, much of that bigotry has been beaten back, even buried. Yet in improbable places the creaky old ways surface, the ways suggesting that we women were made of finer stuff.
-----

The implication is that a century ago women in America were treated like women in Afganistan are now. That's absurd. And the primary importance of the women's movement in this purported change is equally absurd. My grandmother was indeed made of much finer stuff than Quindlen. And while she couldn't make money the way Quindlen has (I'm sure she couldn't have sold such blather), she probably had a richer life than Quindlen has.

At least the article offers the right policy solution. But men should notice how little attention their lives get, and they should notice the strenous, continuing efforts to prop up feminist myths.


Re:a few things to notice
by collins on Monday October 29, @01:44AM EST (#3)
(User #311 Info)
I agree, plumber. Quindlen never seems to really consider the issue of male disposability for the protection and support of women, even though she does take a sensible stand on gender-blind draft policy.

Regardless of what she states about women being decorated for their service in the Persian Gulf or navy women being killed in a terrorist attack, there are still combat exclusion rules in the military branches that protect women from the most dangerous jobs. I don't see any concerted public effort (including any effort on the part of feminist groups) to change the draft laws to require women to register. Nor do I see much mainstream public support to open direct ground combat jobs and other areas to women (submarine service, for instance.) Yes, women do fly jet fighter planes -- the safest and most glamorous of all the combat jobs. But they don't crew battle tanks or serve in combat infantry. They are protected from the jobs that would put them most at risk for death, injury and capture.


Re:a few things to notice
by Hawth on Monday October 29, @02:28AM EST (#4)
(User #197 Info)
I've noticed that most female-penned, equalitarian columns such as this have the obligatory side-notes to the effect of: "No, I have not forgotten how horribly men treated women yesterday - but thanks to how feminism has beaten down their bigotry, I feel comfortable standing up for them today." I don't know if the writers simply throw these disclaimers in out of fear of coming across as disloyal to the Sisterhood, or if it's simply an inclination for women writers to see everything more as a women's issue. Or, maybe it's just plain guilt; if it were the other way around and only women were drafted, could men live with ourselves?


I suspect it's a little of all three. But, by drawing the sardonic analogy between the "finer stuff" women have been thought to be made of with the stuff that we keep on the shelf for limited use and superficial display, Quindlen is letting us know that the greater sentimental value traditionally attached to women registers in her mind as more of an insult - and that, if one must be a porcelain plate, it is far more respectable to be one that is shot at during target practice than one which sits pretty on a shelf.


I guess it's true that the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.
Re:a few things to notice
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Monday October 29, @10:10AM EST (#5)
(User #187 Info) http://www.jameshanbackjr.com
I don't know if the writers simply throw these disclaimers in out of fear of coming across as disloyal to the Sisterhood, or if it's simply an inclination for women writers to see everything more as a women's issue.

I have a feeling she's attempting to avoid hate mail/complaints from gender feminists.

Re:a few things to notice
by Anonymous User on Monday October 29, @03:33PM EST (#6)
They are "protected" from those jobs because the military doesn't think they can handle them. The military fears that they'll do a lousy job, and thus cost us a war.

The purpose of the armed forces is to protect this country, not to thin the herds of females. If you want women in combat, you must prove to the military that they can do just as good a job as the male soldiers.

Protecting this nation is the only thing our military cares about, and quite frankly, I'm glad some of the people on this board aren't in charge. You don't care if we lose the war and all end up speaking Farsi and worshipping Allah, as long as the female population gets reduced in the process.

Some of these commentaries make the men in our armed forces sound like chumps, and make serving in the military sound like a dreaded punishment inflicted upon the most worthless beings in our society. If you think America hates you and considers you disposable, if you hate our armed forces, if you don't care if we lose this war, why not just get on a plane to Kabul and see how highly you'll be valued there.
Re:a few things to notice
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Monday October 29, @03:38PM EST (#7)
(User #187 Info) http://www.jameshanbackjr.com
Not so, bud. What many of the men on this site want is for the military to recognize the value of men's lives and realize that men need not be conscripted in order to serve their country.

If we got rid of the draft would there be more men in the military and in combat than women? Probably. Why? Because men (generally) can better pass the training.

No one here is trying to kill off women.

Geez.

Equality Yes; Preference No
by cshaw on Wednesday October 31, @06:07AM EST (#8)
(User #19 Info)
Women should have equal opportunity in all employment. That includes the military. That means that women must meet the same reasonable standards that males must meet in the military and other professions both intellectual and physical without preference given to them. It is clear that the great majority of women would not be able to meet these reasonable standards both physical and mental in the military. However, some would be able to. These should be allowed to serve in the military in those positions, including ground combat positions, in which they would meet the same reasonable physical and mental qualifications as males. Again, the great majority of females can not meet these standards. In fact, a signficant majority of males can not meet these standards. The preference that females now receive in the military should be ended as it endangers us all. So does the fact that many women serving in non-combat positions are unable and/or unwilling to serve in a combat capacity. All individuals, including females, who are unable and/or unwilling to serve in combat positions (and from what I understand there is a significant number of females that are unwilling and/or unable to serve in combat positions in the military) should be forced to leave the military as we need people in the military who are able to perform their primary designated function which is to defend this country. Those that are unable and/or unwilling to do the same should leave the military.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]