With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge in Texas has declared that the all-male military draft is unconstitutional, ruling that "the time has passed" for a debate on whether women belong in the military.
The decision is the biggest legal challenge to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft in 1981. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the court ruled that the male-only draft was "fully justified" because women were ineligible for combat roles.
But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat "may have justified past discrimination," men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.
The case was brought by the National Coalition of Men, a men's rights group, and two men who argued the all-male draft was unfair.
Men who fail to register with the Selective Service System at their 18th birthday can be denied public benefits like federal employment and student loans. Women cannot register for Selective Service.
The ruling comes as an 11-member commission is studying the future of the draft, including whether women should be included or whether there should continue to be draft registration at all.
Tags
Who is online
216 visitors
There goes more of my male privilege.
LOL
The only thing I can think is that they would have to decide which parent would be able to be drafted.
They cannot leave a family alone.
Which and how would they choose?
Actually, if you enlist, it's on you to figure out child care if you are deployed.
They used to account for such things just fine, especially during Nam.
Parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, friends all come in handy for that sort of thing
Currently, all a woman needs to do to be rejected by the military is to transition to a man. Easy peasy.
On the other hand, all a man needs to do to avoid the draft is to transition to a woman. (or fake bone spurs)
Or go on a "mission" from your church on the beaches of France.
Accepting the Rhodes Scholarship is hardly running away Wally.
removed for context
removed for context
Gender equality can be a double edged sword.
Yet it's a societal imperative.
The seed isn't about 'allowing' them to serve, it's about REQUIRING them to register of the draft.
I don't agree with the draft BUTT, if it exists it should be gender neutral.
Howdy friend Dulay, I want to test this "gender neutral' statement. Mind you, I do not know the answer beforehand. Thus, this is a legitimate expression/concern coming from me. Here goes:
Maybe, I am observing something old-fashioned building within me which this article has touched upon. But, I have often considered women as potentially kneading together whole nations within their wombs. Women/mothers have this ability like none other. Okay, here is my strong statement:
On its face, does drafting women to the frontline of a war (as this article image seems to indicate), create a waste of potential life after the war ends??
Dulay, I really am open to other viewpoints on this as I have not thought this through!
IMO, in days when infant and child mortality was high, this might have been a good reason for keeping women from being soldiers. But today, that's not the case.
And in reality, women have always died in wars. They just didn't always do so in uniform.
Thank you, Sandy. Food for thought. (Smile.)
Now, let me play "devil's advocate," because this thought is 'hanging up' in my mind:
Our society is in flux - it deserves to be, for its past transgressions. We are granting new freedoms galore to our citizenry:
Again, I am playing advocate here. I have not firm commitment to any position at this moment.
You're question does not recognize that wherever we are conducting that war, there are women DYING. War is a gender neutral waste of potential life.
Secondly, as has been the practice in the last two 'conflicts', if we are going to respect the culture of the countries we fight in, women HAVE to be imbedded with patrols and especially 'door to door' searches. While women HAVE been imbedded in such patrols for years, they were NOT recognized as being 'in combat' [conveniently] and were NOT paid the same combat pay as the team [men] they were imbedded with. So these women were taking the same risks [death or wounding], just not getting recognized for doing so.
Another note in that vein is that not recognizing that women WERE in combat, allowed the military to deny them Combat Action Ribbons [citations] that are part of the considerations reviewed for promotion. In short, they were doubly screwed.
As I am opposed to ANYONE being forced to become cannon fodder, the gender of who we loose is moot.
I presume, perhaps naively, that the military will take into consideration the abilities of women, as they have for men. A nurse, a doctor, a linguist, a IT expert may not be best used on the 'frontline of a war'. Just as with those abilities, if you're a female midline factory worker or a retail store 'associate', you should be placed in the same MOS as a male would.
BTW, there are millions of individual egg and sperm 'samples' in cryopreservation as we speak. If we are really worried about loosing genetic diversity, the military can request volunteers to donate egg and sperm upon being enlisted.
An encompassing answer. It wraps in Sandy's reply too. Thank you!
What nation are you talking about CB? The US does NOT 'allow unlimited abortions'.
As for "allowing' a dropping birth rate, I don't see how the 'nation' is responsible for that. Individuals decide in this nation.
It would be great if whatever did spark such a discussion wouldn't be based on whether who we lost had a uterus.
Friend Dulay, that last sentence is a zinger! (Smile.)
Again, I am playing devil's advocate. My understanding is an individual woman can have what abortion activity she needs and accepts. Am I wrong? I could be. Please educate me. (Of course, I do not mean to sound callous about it.)
As for birth rate, I hear it is dropping in this country. I tend to think of it as a consequence of all the changes we as a nation are undertaking in new rights and privileges. So there is an 'adjustment' to the new normal occurring. Question is this: Does the new normal mean deficient number of births?
As to diminishing returns, at some point somebody may have to ask for the next "baby boom"!
I am just throwing out what is clunking around in my head, Dulay!
CB, having that discussion would be derail. If you're really interested, I'm sure that your state offers online information of abortion laws in your state.
What 'new rights and privileges' are you referring to CB?
I guess is depends on what one's definition of deficient numbers of births is. One would have to be able to support the concept that an ever growing population is advantageous.
Considering the events that lead to the last 'baby boom', I'll take a pass. Remember, that was post WWII.
The GI Bill had a LOT to do with the baby boom along with the fact that women who had been encouraged to work in factories during the war were kicked to the curb afterward. The benefits from the GI bill, unemployment, housing stipends, home loan guarantees, college tuition and health care. In short, veterans [at least the males] had a stable subsidized income and women were STUCK at home.
The times have changed and no WWII level baby boom could happen today.
Personally, I'd rather we elevate the quality of life for all of our citizens before we worry about not having enough of them.
Cooking up a batch of Bolognese is what's clunking around in my head today.
Well, on one hand, our nation is attempting to right pass wrongs (barring what President Trump is up to on any given day). Still, our world, our nation, is dynamic. In this way, there are a myriad of outcomes to keep a watchful eye on. While the nation pauses to engage and improve its past internal political shortcomings, I learned of fears of low birth rates among women in specific groups. Well, that can have long-term strategic consequences. (However, that discussion is certainly for another time.)
Okay, WWII was the thing. Yes! However, it is not a foregone conclusion that a future war could not come down to "counting heads." Who will win the 'numbers' war' in the future? Especially, if the ebb and flow is trending downward in western societies. (Just tossing that out there. Possible, hopefully low probable! Horrors!)
Elevate quality of life, I hear you. We need to. We must. Many of our people-citizens, women specifically, are 'so over' repressive regimes which see this as only cogs in a much larger wheel.
Well, I am dealing with a head cold even as I 'clunk' around on this computer 'machine.' Bolognese? Mmm-mmm!
The concept of being scared and opposed to the draft in this day and age is laughable. The services are much better off and more effective with and all volunteer force. I fully support removing the requirement to signup until a true national emergency forces us to do so.
The problem is that fewer and fewer Americans have any connection to the military. I'm not sure if they are a more effective with an all volunteer force. ''Citizen Soldier'' comes to mind.
What would constitute a true national emergency, FLY? That seems to be quite questionable at this time.
Since the volunteer forces "era" of the 2000's (and x repeat stints) I have always dreaded watching the unintentional (or intentional?) forming of a "mercenary force" out of the U.S. military. This can have dangerous undertones for a nation governed by civilian authority.
What is occurring under the Rumsfeld "doctrine" of using light, expeditionary forces (going from memory here) is not the original design for American forces. Though, clearly, today warfare is nothing like the colonial era of our founding.
As we "boil" our drafted soldiers off, the distilling process is exposing clear as day a divided culture of those who have been "through a refiner's fire" of warfare and those who are still raw material untested-never tested.
This outlook could prove to be "enlightening" in another generation!
I always felt safer around people that wanted to be in the Navy, than those that were ordered to be there. (Like the court enforced choice that was still around in the early 1980s military)
I also doubt that we are going to see anything requiring full mobilization similar to WWII. The advent of WMD has kept the nature of conflicts to something while painful, less than requiring our maximum effort. Besides any major conflict is going to be a "Come as you are" affair. We both agree that the level of citizenship in the US could use a shot in the arm. I happen to think that we could get a boost in civic pride by other obligations of service to country of the non-military flavor.
All very valid points!
Boy Howdy!
I'm sure that we could sit down and come up with a whole list of areas where a 'civilian corp' could make a huge impact. If we sweetened the pot by giving college loan credits for hours worked, we could make a dent in issues like overcrowded classrooms and the lack of public defenders.
Opening more Tech schools and local clinics would also open up opportunities for Technicians, Nurses, Therapists and Engineers to work and teach in their skill set. That service too could earn them college credit toward paying off loans taken to gain their skills.
Same here as far as that goes on a small scale/personal level.
However, when we start looking at it from the viewpoint of the entire society, we need a guide to show us what needs to be done and what should never be done. Not surprisingly, being an historian, I find that history is a reliable guide for a society to use, particularly for the kind of behavior to avoid. Regarding using a mercenary army rather than a citizen army, the most notable example of what to avoid comes from the Roman Empire. After they started using barbarian hirelings to make up their army, those running that army quickly became the rulers, mostly because armed force is what government does.
A phrase that I once heard about that period comes to mind, "Roman mothers used to tell their sons, 'Come back with your shield or on it'. Later, that custom declined; so did Rome."
That is not to say that I think that a draft (slave army) is the answer. The real answer is for parents to teach their children that the survival of their country is more important than their own lives. We used to call that patriotism. That went away in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Now, a generation later, we have a situation where most people who think of themselves as citizens, think only of their rights and not their responsibilities. That needs to be corrected, but it will take a long time to go back to the old system.
The U.S. had the draft in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I served with draftees in Vietnam and found them to be excellent troopers. As the war went on and deteriorated to a point that it was obvious that we should not be there the people that were drafted really did not want to be there, since in their opinion it was a waste of human life and a disaster for the U.S.
If you remember correctly many Vietnam vets that were both RA and US protested against the war. I would not hold them (draftees) as any lower or less patriotic then then those that enlisted.
The unit I was in was strictly volunteer and we had draftees that volunteered for these units.
I agree in that, IMO, all citizens should have to serve in some capacity. Whether it be military or some other grouping that would require that they serve a couple of years paying for their citizenship.
At least serve "in some relevant capacity" so each person can have some version of a practical perspective, "be engaged in the discussion," or carry a mystique that won't so readily expose them as not knowing what bonding with their fellow man or woman means.
I agree with your point on the "civilian corps" as a way of improving our citizens while improving key areas of our country.
The best investment a country can make is to invest in it's people......
Of course bankers and stock brokers will tell you otherwise.....
I fully agree with service programs Kavika. Unfortunately, too many are only going to be looking for a financial ROI of 12 months or less. Nobody here in the US wants to play the long game anymore. Look at education as an example.
Why do you say that? Aren't those Millennials in debt up to their eyeballs in student loans playing the long game?
And you will be fighting a lot of us that see it as involuntary servitude closely related to slavery and will fight it tooth and nail.
I support a two year mandatory service for both men and women which can be served anytime between the ages of 18 to 28. So if you're in college, that's fine, serve your two years when you get out. And for the pacifists, they would do two years in the peace corp digging wells in impoverished countries. I think more Americans need to shoulder the burden of service to our nation instead of the paltry 2% of Americans who traditionally serve. It might also give our youth some backbone and direction in life instead of continuing the cycles of poverty seen in so many communities as well as expose them to something outside their tiny bubbles.
Dean - a good number of the European, Asian, African countries required a minimum of two years military service of all their populations unless totally and medically unfit.
And there's that "America first" team spirit we've come to know and love.....!
I rank that right up there with the folks that have "Support the Troops" magnets on their car as they vote for those that cut VA funding.
Overall, I like the overall bonding with those outside of one's life-choice of a bubble. There is nothing quite like service to others for an enduring period to teach people diversity.
But two-year mandatory service would give us a "heaven" of a force. We are a lot bigger than the countries which mandate service, no? (I have not verified this.) Wouldn't we be a country looking for troubles to engage further?
Yes, we would be the largest. Israel has only about 9 million people. I think the benefits would outweigh the negatives, but it won't actually ever happen here, there are too many people deathly afraid of leaving their hollars and would start shooting at anyone trying to get them to serve.
There are plenty of places right here in the US where our 'best and brightest' can work to elevate our society.
Most states have a dire need for teachers, medical staff and they have a skeleton crew protecting wildlife.
Ironically, the only way out of those hollars for far too many is enlistment into the military...
Dulay, I understand what you are sharing I really do. It is just that we are a big open-hearted people and sometimes (okay most of the time) that means we see 'added value' in using all this technology we have somewhere (else) in the world! Usually we want to be the first to insert ourselves with our big, protruding, well-oiled war machines. After all, we're good-looking, smart, wealthy, and 'rock-hardened' people and other nations want to have our babies! That is a use of a double-entendre!
I like the 2 year mandatory service requirements, but would rather see these men and women doing something in this country. We have communities that need wells dug or sewer systems built.
Or never bothered to consider actually serving their country in some volunteer capacity....
Not everyone can afford to do that.
I wonder what this would do to our budget if we were paying everyone for 2 years of service.
I mean in some paid capacity. We had a Mennonite neighbor who spent his "draft" years as an orderly in a public hospital
But are there enough of this type of job available for everyone? And if I go to college and then do community service for 2 years, in the IT world my skills are now obsolete. Doctors have internships. Some people go on to Master's or PhDs. This just doesn't seem practical.
Let me back up.
There probably isn't enough jobs, but I'm sick of people who think they are patriots that never even considered volunteering their time for their country thinking they're better than me when I actually did volunteer my time for my country. And those people know who I'm talking to
And they think President Bone Spur is a patriot /smh
It does seem odd that we elect so many Presidents who have never been in the military. Although I suppose it's almost impossible for anyone to be well-rounded enough to be experienced at all the jobs a real President has to do. It's a very much on-the-job-training type of gig.
Exactly!
I actually agree with you.
Forced servitude just because of being born is wrong. Forced patriotism doesn't work.
On another note, how long does one have to be enlisted to be able to get VA benefits?
If it is two years in the service, that is one way to get universal healthcare.
Wouldn't that just be the government giving people jobs? Basically a forced jobs program.
No because just like the military, it's voluntary.
Want to pay off your student loan on your own? Go right ahead.
Want to voluntarily take a position that may not pay as much but will give you credit toward your student loans, sign up.
Hell, teachers could jump in during the summer to make extra money and sign up for positions like child care or Tech training. Though I do think that the US should have longer school years, that's on the states. Construction workers could do so in the winter.
As the judge opened the window to "what-if's" -
Judge Miller said Congress has never fully examined the issue of whether men are physically better able to serve than women. In fact, he noted in a footnote, "the average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today's combat positions than the average man, depending on which skills the position required. Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle."
With that caveat, now it will be up to Congress to start fully delineating what roles the "average woman could conceivably" and, "which skills the position required". As it stands now, IF the Draft were re-implemented, ALL positions would be filled by all applicants. With the Judge's recommendations, those skills will need to be addressed and finessed.
This is interesting to consider. Thank you!
They've already made boot camp gender neutral and are now conducting ongoing fitness tests that are gender and age neutral. The Marines 'gender integrated' their MOS in 2016. So it seems that quite a bit HAS been done to address skills and fitness. I'm unaware of any MOS positions that have been taken off the table for women.
There are quite a few positions that the average PERSON cannot fill. Those positions require testing and training that an elite minority of applicants manage to pass, regardless of gender. Even the most physically fit men fail and it seems that the true test is psychological and the ability to have good judgement under stress, both gender neutral skills.
Can you explain how a fitness test is gender and age neutral?
Or is it a lowering of the test standards required of men for decades?
Here is just one of many articles about it.
That is a good link, but doesn't address my questions of how a fitness test is gender and age neutral.
Also, sounds like the Army had let some people slip by on some tests with the idea they could improve their scores over time, and it didn't happen that way, which is one reason these new tests are being conducted.
The first hyperlink in the article DOES, it just takes some curiosity to get there.
Here I'll post it for your convenience.
You will need however have to have the curiosity to hit the hyperlinks for the whole story.
You're welcome.
Thanks!
Sounds like they have designed tests and everyone regardless of gender has to perform to a minimum level to pass. Sounds fair to me.
Good change for the military.
You were never in the army so what do you know?
Not everybody in the military is a friggin' roid-ingesting gym rat. And some people are nearly middle aged
IMHO, the military has changed it's standards in much more important ways than that. Allowing those with criminal records to enlist as an example.
Like I said......
those who never wore the uniform should sit down and color
There has to be a minimum requirement for physical fitness in the military.
Each of the ''schools'' has their own physical requirements. A person in the quartermaster corp or an administrative position doesn't have to have the same physical abilities as some one that is Airborne, Ranger, etc etc...
Nor should the opposite apply to the Airborne or Ranger schools. They have to be, because of their combat requirements, in the best possible shape.
Cooks, of course, have to be in the best possible physical condition. They have to smell and eat their own food on a daily basis.
I don't disagree with you, Kavika. But somebody up there thinks everybody in the military is the same and we all did the same job.
My job wasn't physically demanding, but I had to maintain basic physical fitness skills.
And military cooks are getting better. I've eaten at the base chow hall and they make some pretty good chow
''Snicker''
The real military having a picnic in the forest.
That looks like it's in a deployment zone so I'm not gonna begrudge these airmen their chocolate fountains.
They've earned it. But a few extra laps around the track is probably in order
A deployment zone....Where, Palm Springs...LMAO
Aren't most of the chow halls run by contractors now?
Lol what are you snickering at? You'll notice they are having to eat without wait staff, table linens or silverware, the struggle is indeed real.
you be quiet
Not at our base. The cooks all wear a military uniform. And they all look very healthy.
smirk
Hey....my boy actually went to Kuwait
I think I see my grampap in that line
Chill trout.
I was joking with him.
It's a joke. Kavika always teases me about the Air Force
Your grand pa...Hell that's me.
Isn't this a photo of WWII or Korea?
I know they didn't have snow in Vietnam
It's legit 9mm..They do good work and I donate to them regularly...Here is a link to Charity Navigator in which they are reviewed and scored.
Obviously your correct. I did spend a bit of time in that garden spot called Vietnam. Yeah the M14 did go out in the late 60's but I never bothered to carry one. Mine weapon was a Stevens 520-30 Trench gun.
Training photo taken in the 60's...
Is one of those fellas you?
Damn, at first I thought you actually had one of the shotguns...The bayonets are bad ass.
Actually they were an excellent close combat jungle weapon..
No, not me. Just a random photo of the net.
I stuck strictly with the jungle, don't like snow.
Nope, actually rarely worn a helmet at all, stuck with headbands and feathers.
Vietnam is the only place in the world where you can have dust blowing in your face while standing in a rice patty up to your knees in water and 90 degree heat and humidity. That same night think you were freezing your ass off. Crazy place the Central Highlands.
BTW, the great nephew is career Army. 10th Mountain Division and has seen plenty of combat in Iraq and Afgan. He is part of the 87th Infantry of the 10th Mountain.
Rather proud of him.
Cool !
"Equal Rights" …….. 'bout time we make it law that you Get the ugly along with the supposed Good everyone wants.
I am shocked more women haven't come out in favor of this ruling.
You figure they would be ecstatic about this ruling.