YES.This year, women have made one large step towards equality with the Pentagon’s opening of combat roles to both genders.
True equality requires sacrifice and the elimination of double standards. For this reason, I believe that both men and women should be required to enlist in Selective Service.
Double standards may often appear benign. For example, simple chivalrous gestures such as a man holding a door open or pulling a chair out for a woman do not carry the same glaring repugnance of sexual harassment or gender discrimination. However, beneath the skin of gentility lies a skeleton of chauvinism. This unequal treatment, however good-natured it may appear, hails from an antiquated regard of women as a weaker sex.
While the “death of chivalry” is often lamented, the hatchling equity that has emerged from its ashes should be celebrated. Before it may take flight, America must continue weeding out its antediluvian rituals and unspoken laws.
The standing double standard regarding the draft has the superficial appearance of being within the best interest of women. After all, there are very few individuals who would gladly serve after being drafted; such zeal is typically reserved for those who are serving voluntarily.
The draft may be unpopular, but it currently exists as a contingency plan. While I harbor my own doubts about the fundamental efficacy and fairness of the draft, I find it overwhelmingly evident that any system of conscription can no longer discriminate against women.
Although it is relatively unlikely that the draft will be reinstated in the near future, this issue is still important because of the symbolic value of the U.S. military. Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces in 1948 and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 were both significant victories in the battles for civil rights and LGBT rights respectively. The U.S. military is a manifestation of our government. The discriminatory policies of the military directly reflect upon our nation as a whole.
I will concede that this legislation could create moderate logistical strains. A universal draft would have to create new exemptions for pregnancy and prevent both parents from being drafted.
Currently, adult males can be charged with a felony, fined up to $250,000, and denied federal financial aid for college if they fail to enroll in the draft. While felony charges are essentially never prosecuted, this legal jeopardy is highly discriminatory. In the U.S., primary education is compulsory, like the draft. Imagine a law that criminalized truancy for only one gender while the other was free to leave school as they pleased. This would strike most as outrageous, yet the draft currently has double standards that parallel this model.
Consider that some day, an engagement may be equally likely to be initiated by either party. This will strike a sour note for many; after all, the old ways hold a sentimental value that we have been raised to cherish.
If this is the case, how will equality ever be achieved? Well, customs often wane, losing their meaning like the words passed along in a game of telephone. Thus, true equity may be achieved through evolution.
Alternatively, there is rebellion. Social norms have been cast aside before with dramatic results. The civil rights movement challenged hundreds of years of prejudice in a radical step towards freedom.
Selective Service for women lies in a comfortably moderate position between these two models of growth. It bends rules, but does not break them by promoting equality.
It is true that women have often been historically and universally excluded from war by custom and societal norms. However, women must accept the freedom to serve following the Pentagon’s policy change with the responsibility of Selective Service. If the ultimate goal of our society is to attain social equity amongst citizens, then these archaic double standards must be systematically eliminated.
NO.Traditionally, wars have avoided dragging in women and children. With the exception of the Greek Amazons, the initial reaction is that women and war should have nothing to do with each other. Under the current status quo, only men are required to serve under the draft. This requirement was ruled constitutional in Rostker v. Goldberg, a 1981 Supreme Court case. Very few men who aren’t in the military want to be, so a draft isn’t exactly ideal. Some people might want to incorporate women with a cynical twist on equality, but women wouldn’t want to serve either. Drafts are out of apparent necessity—they’re rare enough that requiring women to be involved is frivolous.
While the number of prisoners-of-war has constantly decreased since the Vietnam War, capture is always an ever-present threat. Women are particularly threatened as POWs because they are vulnerable to a wider range of abuses. Historically and in various countries around the world, rape is utilized as effectively as any weapon, and numerous analysts regard it as a tactic of oppression. Fear of being captured, while among one of the largest concerns of any soldier, is a close second to fears of sexual abuse within the U.S. military. Approximately one-third of all female soldiers are sexually assaulted during their service, and about 4% report an actual or attempted rape, which is ten times the rate of civilians. Women are more than one hundred times likely to be sexually assaulted than killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 139 women were killed since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and in 2011 alone there were 877 reported incidents of sexual assault. The Pentagon also estimates that 80-90% of all incidents go unreported.
While the military is taking steps to curb this epidemic, one as notorious as its ballooning suicide rates, the issue is deeply rooted, and such scandals reflect poorly on the military since many instances of rape are merely dismissed. In the event of a large-scale draft, countless young men and women would be forced to interact, and chances are that because of the influx of undisciplined recruits, rape would be as prevalent of an issue as ever. Creating a situation like this is inopportune for everybody.
A significant reason for lifting the combat ban was that women were too often blocked from advancing their military careers because they had no experience in combat—experience that they were never allowed to earn. Allowing these women, as volunteers, to fight in combat is definitely a step towards equality. Opening other options for advancing a military career for both men and women would prove beneficial in the long run. However, thrusting some untold amounts of young women into combat is an unsavory idea, and in the event that there is a requirement for Selective Service for women, they would likely be relegated to mostly logistic and support roles. This could cause quite a bit of grumbling and resentment among young men, who in turn would probably be sent to combat roles they might have otherwise been lucky enough to avoid.
By giving women an active presence in selective service, it seems to follow that women should represent half of the military. This conclusion is obviously flawed because, as of this year, women only account for about 15% of active military personnel. Since there won’t be a draft to suddenly bring the ratio of men to women to equilibrium, chances are that any aspirations of eliminating sexism among male soldiers are destined to fail. Regardless of whether or not women are required to enter into selective service, this is a missed step towards equality because it will change nothing. Since Selective Service would hardly cause a sudden spike in female enrollment, the military is likely to remain mostly the same as it has been.
Nobody likes the idea of being forced to fight, but initiating a draft is done out of desperation and necessity, so somebody has to do it. Women should be allowed to fight if they want to—but leave them out of Selective Service.
