Posted on Jul 15, 2015
Should young women be required to register for the draft?
8.38K
132
54
"Elizabeth Kyle doesn't consider herself an activist, but she has something she wants to tell the federal government: It's not fair that young men are required to register for the draft, but women are not.
To that end, Kyle and her mother, Allison, of Parsippany, filed a federal lawsuit this month demanding equality. Either have the U.S. Selective Service System require young women to register, or make it voluntary for both sexes, the lawsuit demands.
Elizabeth Kyle, who graduated from high school last month, learned of this disparate treatment when she saw friends who turned 18 were not allowed to proceed on the online registration form when they clicked "female" on the gender identification question.
Under current law, virtually all males 18-25 in the United States must register for the draft, although the draft itself has been mothballed since 1973. Women can enlist, but they cannot register for the draft.
Now that the Pentagon has rolled back most rules excluding women from combat roles, there's no reason young women 18-25 should not be required to register, the Kyles' lawsuit says.
Congress would have to rewrite the law to require women to register for the draft. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-N.Y.) filed just such a measure in March. The bill was referred to the House Armed Services Committee.
What do you think?
Should women be required to register for the draft?"
To that end, Kyle and her mother, Allison, of Parsippany, filed a federal lawsuit this month demanding equality. Either have the U.S. Selective Service System require young women to register, or make it voluntary for both sexes, the lawsuit demands.
Elizabeth Kyle, who graduated from high school last month, learned of this disparate treatment when she saw friends who turned 18 were not allowed to proceed on the online registration form when they clicked "female" on the gender identification question.
Under current law, virtually all males 18-25 in the United States must register for the draft, although the draft itself has been mothballed since 1973. Women can enlist, but they cannot register for the draft.
Now that the Pentagon has rolled back most rules excluding women from combat roles, there's no reason young women 18-25 should not be required to register, the Kyles' lawsuit says.
Congress would have to rewrite the law to require women to register for the draft. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-N.Y.) filed just such a measure in March. The bill was referred to the House Armed Services Committee.
What do you think?
Should women be required to register for the draft?"
Equality
Gender
Women in the Military
Posted >1 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
With the fight for equality in the military and the recent decision by the Army to open combat arms MOS's to women in the Army, being so much in the news and discussion, do you think that women of the required Selective Service age group should be made to register as their male counterparts are?
Responses: 27
SGT William Howell
What a great story.
I think all should have to register and I'll go one step further. All Americans should have to do National Service, whether that is the military, national parks, teaching English in Alabama or working in a nursing home for 18-24 months.
SSG Izzy Abbass
dunno what ya'll yapping about (trying to sound southern but being from Colorado, accents from areas under 5,000 feet in elevation are a bit tough. Yodeling anyone??
LTC James Bozeman
I completely agree that we need some type of compulsory service to help America. This would have the benefit of teaching skills, patriotism, and giving people a broader perspective while helping Americans around the country.
SGT Mary G.
Absolutely. All should register and there should be mandatory national service after graduation (or after age 16 for those who quit school like too many in some states) with at least two years of education provided (mandatory) after service (vocational, college, or apprenticeship).
Maybe instead of ONLY registering everyone should go through basic training and AIT then be in the reserve (like IRR type reserve) unless or until needed. It works for Switzerland. All the men are trained and in the reserve (all the men and women here could be). Switzerland is prepared . . . and Switzerland stays neutral while remaining prepared.
The opportunities for everyone to serve our nation, to have job training, and to pursue an education, . . . . should all make a good difference in reducing the crime rate and over-crowded prisons while leading to a citizenry that takes pride of ownership in our nation and lives accountably in ways that make a good difference for us all.
Maybe instead of ONLY registering everyone should go through basic training and AIT then be in the reserve (like IRR type reserve) unless or until needed. It works for Switzerland. All the men are trained and in the reserve (all the men and women here could be). Switzerland is prepared . . . and Switzerland stays neutral while remaining prepared.
The opportunities for everyone to serve our nation, to have job training, and to pursue an education, . . . . should all make a good difference in reducing the crime rate and over-crowded prisons while leading to a citizenry that takes pride of ownership in our nation and lives accountably in ways that make a good difference for us all.
SPC Sheila Lewis
yes National Service, but not necessarily the Military, because some just aren't cut uot for the Military.
WO1 (Join to see) I have three (3) daughters just in case anybody didn't like my answer and I think when they turned (18) two already and one is at (17) they should and would have to register for the draft. Women play a very important role in almost all of our services and most of the specialties; and soon they will be getting more involved in the combat arms throughout the military. Absolutely yes. This ensures that we can flex up to large numbers if "God forbid" we every needed to. I think women in most cases would welcome that change. TSgt Hunter Logan what are your thoughts? Am I on of off? Please answer that in the context that I provided also LOL!
SGT William Howell
I have 3 daughters and I have told all of them that they will do some type of National Service if they want me to help with college. I want my daughters to understand that service to our country makes use stronger as individuals and as a nation.
If women want to be "equal" in all things in the military (i.e., combat arms inclusion, Ranger School, etc.), then, yes, they should be required to register for the draft. If they are excluded from the requirement to register for the draft or anything else men are not excluded from, then it should be OK to exclude women from such things as the combat arms and Ranger School. All or none...
SrA Edward Vong
Even though I disagree with drafting. That's a pretty fair way to put it in regards to the draft.
Neither men, nor women should be required to register for the draft. I think we have enough interested parties that wish to serve under their own free will.
LCDR (Join to see)
Keep in mind though that the draft is when it is needed, not for normal times or even limited conflict. It still exists for the (hopefully) small chance that a major war (WWI, II, Civil War) were to break out again. We have enough interested parties right now, but it's a different story when the number needed grows suddenly.
SrA Edward Vong
LCDR (Join to see)
I do understand the reasoning behind the draft. The issue to me is, those that do not qualify, and those that object to serving. Of course those that do not qualify could just be turned away. A coward who refuses to fight after signing up is different from a coward who refuses to sign up period. The result of objecting to serve may be jail-time. That I cannot agree with.
I believe if a crisis like WWII ever happens again, US citizens would band together and there would be many interested in signing up. I know I would.
I do understand the reasoning behind the draft. The issue to me is, those that do not qualify, and those that object to serving. Of course those that do not qualify could just be turned away. A coward who refuses to fight after signing up is different from a coward who refuses to sign up period. The result of objecting to serve may be jail-time. That I cannot agree with.
I believe if a crisis like WWII ever happens again, US citizens would band together and there would be many interested in signing up. I know I would.
LCDR (Join to see)
That's true. If we had something that large where the freedom of the world was so obviously at stake, I think we would get a large number of volunteers. My problem is that I don't think with the current levels of warfare that it would be as obvious it was happening.
The purpose of the draft is to expand the military roster rapidly, beyond that of the current recruitment efforts. As such, it is just not needed. The Selective Service requirement supports that need. As such, the Draft, and the Selective Service requirement is essentially obsolete with the All Volunteer Force.
As we do not generally use "open contract" personnel in Combat Arms (at least in the USMC), which is where the vast majority of Drafted personnel would go, there is little point in having it all.
In other words, it is far better to just get rid of it, than to try to make it gender-neutral. Honestly however, were it up to me, if we were going to expand the draft to women as well, we should expand it to not only women but all persons age 18 to 70 (those eligible to serve in any capacity).
My belief is that those who can be conscripted to serve will have a different philosophical outlook than those who cannot (Chickenhawk mentality).
R.A. Heinlein made a great suggestion regarding the Draft and War Powers which I think would solve the issues however.
Congress could put War on the table, but only the People could actually Declare it (via direct Popular vote).
1) Those who vote Yea, are immediately Drafted and report to serve the following day
2) Those who abstain become "Reservists" and are the first to be called "as needed"
3) Those who vote No, go about their lives, but may join as any Citizen chooses.
This promotes a "Stay out of other countries' affairs philosophy" as well as "You want a voice, you must vote" philosophy. It also prevents old men in DC from sending our folks to War over issues We the People don't want to be involved in.
As we do not generally use "open contract" personnel in Combat Arms (at least in the USMC), which is where the vast majority of Drafted personnel would go, there is little point in having it all.
In other words, it is far better to just get rid of it, than to try to make it gender-neutral. Honestly however, were it up to me, if we were going to expand the draft to women as well, we should expand it to not only women but all persons age 18 to 70 (those eligible to serve in any capacity).
My belief is that those who can be conscripted to serve will have a different philosophical outlook than those who cannot (Chickenhawk mentality).
R.A. Heinlein made a great suggestion regarding the Draft and War Powers which I think would solve the issues however.
Congress could put War on the table, but only the People could actually Declare it (via direct Popular vote).
1) Those who vote Yea, are immediately Drafted and report to serve the following day
2) Those who abstain become "Reservists" and are the first to be called "as needed"
3) Those who vote No, go about their lives, but may join as any Citizen chooses.
This promotes a "Stay out of other countries' affairs philosophy" as well as "You want a voice, you must vote" philosophy. It also prevents old men in DC from sending our folks to War over issues We the People don't want to be involved in.
LCDR (Join to see)
Parts of this I can agree with, but a public vote to declare war is unrealistic. Too much emotion and physical reluctance to serve from the populace as a whole (who have no training) would make it impossible. I'm not saying declaring war should be easy, but if it isn't even an option, our military becomes pointless as a deterrent to any malignant entity, terrorists included.
Unfortunately there are times when hard choices must be made regarding human life, especially in war. Although less time critical than an immediate combat decision, the same points still apply. A squad leader cannot (nor should he) ask for a vote of his squad before storming a machine gun nest. Yes, I understand this isn't the same thing, but asking the populace to vote on war and then enlist when/if they vote yes would have similar ramifications.
And just to be clear, I don't completely disagree with you, I just think the practicality of implementation isn't quite there.
Unfortunately there are times when hard choices must be made regarding human life, especially in war. Although less time critical than an immediate combat decision, the same points still apply. A squad leader cannot (nor should he) ask for a vote of his squad before storming a machine gun nest. Yes, I understand this isn't the same thing, but asking the populace to vote on war and then enlist when/if they vote yes would have similar ramifications.
And just to be clear, I don't completely disagree with you, I just think the practicality of implementation isn't quite there.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LCDR (Join to see) I pointed it out as an interesting premise (it wasn't mine. The author Robert Heinlein presented it originally). The advantage of it is "money where your mouth is," and it is still an "All Volunteer Force" concept, which does not remove the concept of a standing Army, just the idea of a Draft (Conscription).
I despise the idea of Conscription, solely because you will never get the best results from those who do not wish to serve. You want people who want to be there. Those who chose to be there. The above forces that, which is its advantage, and our current Draft's disadvantage.
I absolutely agree the above would be unrealistic, just like any future draft is a non-starter. We just won't have any land engagement that will require it.
The good Congressman who is suggesting the Draft has done so consistently over the years. It is one of his pet projects. He does it more out of protest than anything. It's his way of showing the cost of war. I really can't blame him.
I despise the idea of Conscription, solely because you will never get the best results from those who do not wish to serve. You want people who want to be there. Those who chose to be there. The above forces that, which is its advantage, and our current Draft's disadvantage.
I absolutely agree the above would be unrealistic, just like any future draft is a non-starter. We just won't have any land engagement that will require it.
The good Congressman who is suggesting the Draft has done so consistently over the years. It is one of his pet projects. He does it more out of protest than anything. It's his way of showing the cost of war. I really can't blame him.
LCDR (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Gotcha. I definitely think it would show the cost of war and agree with the money where your mouth is part for sure.
It is a very interesting premise to say the least!
It is a very interesting premise to say the least!
Yes they should. My daughter is all ready thinking about going after she grads from WVU. So yes!
Suspended Profile
I have daughters that would have to register....and I can honestly say that in today's world of gender equality the time has come.
What draft is this that you speak of? However, they should have to register with Selective Service.
I understand where they're coming from, but the fact is if we ever needed con scription we would really only need the male component. That would not preclude females from volunteering. WWII showed how important females in the continental US were for war effort. That said, a 'registration' may not be an enforcable equality argument as there is no loss or gain of property, money, or tangible harm.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google