Women and Selective Service

[freeRadical]

If this doesn’t belong in this forum please move it.

For those who don’t know, in the US men have to register for Selective Service when they turn 18. Selective Service is basically registering with the government so they have a list of people in case they ever have a draft again.

My question is, do you think that women should have to register for Selective Service. Currently, by federal law, only men have to register for Selective Service. Recently, the US government has changed its law regarding women in combat roles and now women can be in combat roles in the US military. Shouldn’t they have to register for Selective Service too?

Isn’t this gender discrimination?

 

[GEddie]

Yep, I’d say it is sexual discrimination.

Since sometime in the next five cycles, this country will elect a female to its Presidency (military Commander In Chief), women need to have some skin in the game where war is concerned.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Nacho45]

If this doesn’t belong in this forum please move it.

For those who don’t know, in the US men have to register for Selective Service when they turn 18. Selective Service is basically registering with the government so they have a list of people in case they ever have a draft again.

My question is, do you think that women should have to register for Selective Service. Currently, by federal law, only men have to register for Selective Service. Recently, the US government has changed its law regarding women in combat roles and now women can be in combat roles in the US military. Shouldn’t they have to register for Selective Service too?

Isn’t this gender discrimination?

They should either both be required to register or neither. I propose neither with the understanding the US government claims there will never again be a draft and the military is 100% voluntary.

 

[on_the_hill]

Sure, it might be sex discrimination.

But that’s life, isn’t it?

There are many, dozens, hundreds of situations like that everywhere you look. In a lot of ways, that’s how this whole society-thing works.

Personally, being the father or two daughters, I don’t have a problem with them not registering. By the same token, I don’t have a problem that my son will register when he gets to that age.

 

[Corki]

Yes, it is gender discrimination. Not all discrimination is unjust or illegal, however. This is the good kind of discrimination. It is perfectly fine with me to have Selective Service apply only to men.

 

[Rete]

It’s not really a good idea. Implementing something like that would be nothing more than political theater, at best.

If we have to conscript troops to fight a war again, then we are in a lot of trouble, since most military units in our time are highly professional and trained. A unit of conscripts wouldn’t really be very effective.

A unit with conscripted women would be even less effective. I don’t say that to be mean. You have to be realistic about things. Women are not on average nearly as strong as men. They lack the endurance. They lack the pain tolerance (and no, it’s a myth that they have more pain tolerance because of birthing; they actually have more pain nerves than men).

That’s not to say there exist no women who can do the exact same soldiering as the other men in a unit. There certainly are women like that. But they are exceptional. When you look at the averages – and that’s what you will get when you delve into conscription – women perform well below men in strength, endurance, and ability to withstand pain.

Yes, I realize that women do just as well in combat positions associated with the Air Force and Navy. But those jobs won’t be filled by conscripts.

 

[maryjk]

Yep, I’d say it is sexual discrimination.

Since sometime in the next five cycles, this country will elect a female to its Presidency (military Commander In Chief), women need to have some skin in the game where war is concerned.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.

ICXC NIKA

Yep, it is discrimination. And that is a good thing.

It is a sad state of affairs if we are willing to send the barer of our children off to war.:sad_yes:

 

[tjones80]

If this doesn’t belong in this forum please move it.

For those who don’t know, in the US men have to register for Selective Service when they turn 18. Selective Service is basically registering with the government so they have a list of people in case they ever have a draft again.

My question is, do you think that women should have to register for Selective Service. Currently, by federal law, only men have to register for Selective Service. Recently, the US government has changed its law regarding women in combat roles and now women can be in combat roles in the US military. Shouldn’t they have to register for Selective Service too?

Isn’t this gender discrimination?

There is no need to have women register for the selective service. The role of women in combat roles is entirely voluntarily. Men make up 99% of combat roles and are more suited for that role. If some court ruled or law was made requiring a 50/50 draft rule for the armed services based on sex it would be a catastrophic mistake and lead to the defeat of US forces in a major war.

I served in the army and the women were useless in the movement of equipment requiring physical strength or long term deployments in the field. Male soldiers picked up the slack. You never hear active duty male soldiers complaining about female soldiers because their career would come to a quick end.

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Men should lay down their lives for women, children, and the elderly, it’s written on our hearts. I’m a man and I had put my life on the line protecting those who were physically weaker than me.

 

[GEddie]

Yep, it is discrimination. And that is a good thing.

It is a sad state of affairs if we are willing to send the barer of our children off to war.:sad_yes:

Hey, if a woman will have power to order others to die, why shouldn’t her sisters be subject to that order.

For that matter, if WOMEN were going to be at risk, maybe wars wouldn’t start so readily.

ICXC NIKA

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is no need to have women register for the selective service. The role of women in combat roles is entirely voluntarily. Men make up 99% of combat roles and are more suited for that role. If some court ruled or law was made requiring a 50/50 draft rule for the armed services based on sex it would be a catastrophic mistake and lead to the defeat of US forces in a major war.

I served in the army and the women were useless in the movement of equipment requiring physical strength or long term deployments in the field. Male soldiers picked up the slack. You never hear active duty male soldiers complaining about female soldiers because their career would come to a quick end.

-Not every man in the military is in a combat MOS and not every man in a combat MOS serves in combat
-100% of all men in combat MOSs are there voluntarily. Small side effect of an all volunteer military
-Not every man who was drafted in the past under SS went into a combat MOS or served in combat
-Using the SS program to draft women into non-combat MOSs wouldn’t be that hard to do, even for our current crop of government leaders.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yep, it is discrimination. And that is a good thing.

It is a sad state of affairs if we are willing to send the barer of our children off to war.:sad_yes:

But sending the fathers of said children off to war is perfectly ok?

 

[maryjk]

Hey, if a woman will have power to order others to die, why shouldn’t her sisters be subject to that order.

For that matter, if WOMEN were going to be at risk, maybe wars wouldn’t start so readily.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, because a woman would be much less likely to send young women that she doesn’t know into combat, than her own son.

Keeping in mind to be president you must be 35. Your sisters, chances are, would be about the same age. Whereas, your son, would be closer to draft age.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If this doesn’t belong in this forum please move it.

For those who don’t know, in the US men have to register for Selective Service when they turn 18. Selective Service is basically registering with the government so they have a list of people in case they ever have a draft again.

My question is, do you think that women should have to register for Selective Service. Currently, by federal law, only men have to register for Selective Service. Recently, the US government has changed its law regarding women in combat roles and now women can be in combat roles in the US military. Shouldn’t they have to register for Selective Service too?

Isn’t this gender discrimination?

Yes it is gender discrimination, and yes it needs to be changed, and no you won’t see any major women’s group mount a long term national campaign to have it changed.

 

[Brendan]

Is it sexual discrimination? yes.

But it does not follow that it is a form of unjust discrimination.

I personally hold that it follows the logical separation of duties between males and females as envisioned by God.

Therefore, no it should NOT be changed.

The closer our laws follow the Natural Law and the ordered separation of roles, the closer they are to true justice.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

A few months ago the founder of this site had a thread concerning women serving in combat MOSs. He couldn’t come up with an argument that Natural Law supports such a division, nor could any of the users who use this site. The moral rights and responsibilities of self-defense and protection of others (which is the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare) is not one of those items which is dictated by one’s gender.

 

[tafan]

A few months ago the founder of this site had a thread concerning women serving in combat MOSs. He couldn’t come up with an argument that Natural Law supports such a division, nor could any of the users who use this site. The moral rights and responsibilities of self-defense and protection of others (which is the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare) is not one of those items which is dictated by one’s gender.

I missed the thread you referred to, so let me have a go at it. I respectfully and strongly disagree with your last statement.

It is actually two statements in one. There is a difference between self-defense and the defense of others. So lets look at each one:

Self-defense - this is a moral right, but not an obligation. The right does not exist on one’s gender, BUT it is certainly NOT the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare. So it really has not bearing on the matter.

The protection of others:
Here, you are closer to the truth. It can definitely be considered the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare. So far so good. But, let us look at what the Church says specifically:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

It can be an obligation for one who is responsible for the lives of others. Therefore, your statement that it is not based on gender is only valid if (and only if) you can show that women (in general) are responsible for the lives of the community at large. You have not shown that. For sure, when women join the military, they become responsible, but are they responsible for the lives of the community at large when they are not in the military? A long term view of history, spanning almost all cultures, would indicate they are not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It can be an obligation for one who is responsible for the lives of others. Therefore, your statement that it is not based on gender is only valid if (and only if) you can show that women (in general) are responsible for the lives of the community at large. You have not shown that. For sure, when women join the military, they become responsible, but are they responsible for the lives of the community at large when they are not in the military? A long term view of history, spanning almost all cultures, would indicate they are not.

The Church teaching on defense of the common good applies to those individuals who currently are responsible for the lives of others. It says nothing about classes of people and the degree to which culture commonly ascribes that responsibility to members of that class. So a man who has worked in a bakery shop all his life is no more or less responsible for the common defense than a women who drives a school bus. This is affirmed by the third sentence of your quote of CCC 2265:

2265: …For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

It says “those who legitimately hold authority”. It does not say “those who, by their membership in a class (gender) more frequently hold authority”.

Actually, 2265 does not compel selective service for women, but neither does it compel selective service for men. The decision to use selective service is a prudential decision made by a government as it seeks the best way to provide for the defense of the common good. About all it does say is that if you find yourself in the position of defending the common good, then you have an obligation to do so.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I missed the thread you referred to, so let me have a go at it. I respectfully and strongly disagree with your last statement.

It is actually two statements in one. There is a difference between self-defense and the defense of others. So lets look at each one:

Self-defense - this is a moral right, but not an obligation. The right does not exist on one’s gender, BUT it is certainly NOT the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare. So it really has not bearing on the matter.

The protection of others:
Here, you are closer to the truth. It can definitely be considered the root of the Church’s teachings on warfare. So far so good. But, let us look at what the Church says specifically:

It can be an obligation for one who is responsible for the lives of others. Therefore, your statement that it is not based on gender is only valid if (and only if) you can show that women (in general) are responsible for the lives of the community at large. You have not shown that. For sure, when women join the military, they become responsible, but are they responsible for the lives of the community at large when they are not in the military? A long term view of history, spanning almost all cultures, would indicate they are not.

-If self-defense and the protection of others is not the root of Catholic theology on warfare what exactly is?
-While you need me to show that my argument is valid, you have failed to show the validity of your own in regards to men being responsible for the safety of the community.
-History actually argues against your argument since the women, not the men, were the ones left to defend “hearth and home” while the men were out hunting, exploring, trading, or waging war on others. Frankly, if we view the development of warfare and the historic gender roles in it through the lens of Catholic theology concerning war (only in defense, as a last resort) we will find that women, not men, are the ones that have historically been given the responsibility of safeguarding the community.
-Sociology also argues against your argument, and for mine, since women are found in almost every culture to be the ones responsible for the home and well being of the community.
-Nature itself (biology a better word? not to be confused with Natural law) also argues against your argument and for mine. One never hears the phrase “Don’t get between a father bear and his cubs.” We also have the situation in which most animal species that have something we can label as “community” are structured in such a way that most of the males of that species don’t actually live within that “community.” Most of the populations of those “communities” are females (adult and juvenile), juvenile males, and one to a handful of adult males.
-Lastly, we have the case of St. Joan of Arc, who was given a mission by God to engage in warfare with the English. We are left with only three options- your argument is flawed, St. Joan wasn’t on a mission from God (the Church says she was), or God violated natural law (not possible).

 

[4Squarebaby]

GEddie:

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeRadical

If this doesn’t belong in this forum please move it.

For those who don’t know, in the US men have to register for Selective Service when they turn 18. Selective Service is basically registering with the government so they have a list of people in case they ever have a draft again.

My question is, do you think that women should have to register for Selective Service. Currently, by federal law, only men have to register for Selective Service. Recently, the US government has changed its law regarding women in combat roles and now women can be in combat roles in the US military. Shouldn’t they have to register for Selective Service too?

Isn’t this gender discrimination?

Yep, I’d say it is sexual discrimination.

Since sometime in the next five cycles, this country will elect a female to its Presidency (military Commander In Chief), women need to have some skin in the game where war is concerned.

If the Israelis can do it, so can we.

ICXC NIKA

There is a difference Israeli women are drafted and actually serve. American Selective Service was restarted when we thought we were losing The Cold War as a means to send a message because the Soviet Union crossed the order into Afganistan. Today it is just a jobs program for a few federal employees. A post card sent in when someone turns 18 will in no way decrease the amount of time needed to raise an army since every kid is now issued a social security number and is tracked more efficiently then just having an address on the 18th birthday on file.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android