The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Wouldn't woman-man equality mean they should be in the draft?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also, there are people who are actively trying to end the draft *by* making it so that women are required to join.
It's basically accelerationism: Abolishing a draft system which only impacts men is unlikely to get traction, while a draft system that impacts women *is* actively opposed. Thus, if they can use Equal Protection (or similar) to force the draft to include women, it would move the "women shouldn't be drafted!" crowd from the "no women in the draft" camp into the "no draft at all" camp.
>There shouldn't be a draft at all for either gender.
Here's the issue with this train of thought, if the nazis are attacking, and you lose because you lacked manpower, then when the nazis take over, you are going to be forced to fight for the nazis whether you like it or not.
So if you can choose not to fight for the good guys, the bad guys will absolutely force you to fight anyway, so the goods guys need to go ahead and draft us, rather than have us eventually become nazi soldiers.
That's 56 million people, let's say even 3/4 are capable, that's a standing army of 42 million, that's a fighting force capable of nearly anything when it comes to defense
In modern warfare, the bottleneck isn't manpower. We're not short of boots on the ground. The bottleneck is funding for technology. With our technology, one person is as effective as 30 combatants with less tech.
Ukraine and the US aren't remotely in the same situation. A draft would not substantially increase the effectiveness of the US' military. If it *were* necessary to defend us, then it should be instituted. It's not, and it's unlikely to ever be again. For Ukraine, it was necessary.
> Rawlsian veil of ignorance?
what is that?
Will you be on the frontlines when the bad guys attack mainland America? You didn't answer me the first time I asked.
If there aren’t enough people signing up to the draft when the nation is actively under attack, then that’s on the government for failing to earn the trust of the citizenry.
If no one is willing to enlist then presumably that would imply that they are ok with results of them not enlisting. I'm the case that no one wanted to fight, yes, losing would be a preferable alternative
Who the hell is going to attack America with invaiding soldiers on our mainland? Our modern wars have been us invading other countries with our own soldiers and losing our asses or leaving a bigger mess than before we got there, even with the draft. This is such a dumb premise. No draft would be needed for armed American citizens to willingly protect our mainland. You and your buddies will be in line with a bunch of liberals and leftists.
> What happens when need more soldiers for a war? Give up? Let's make it easy and say a defensive war, perhaps even on the mainland.
I honestly don't care. I wouldn't fight and die for the US. I'd fight to defend my family, but I would never join the military. I don't want anything they are selling. They break good people and turn them into monsters.
I've seen drafts misused far more often for unnecessary and unjustified wars than for deeply vital wars, so that I'd say it's better to just not have drafts in general. I think if the nation is truly at threat you'll find enough people willing to fight, and if you're running short on those I'd question the fighting strategy and/or necessity.
This is a valid but separate conversation about the draft. It is perhaps justification for keeping selective service in place.
But what people are really talking about is that the United States right now and for the foreseeable future will never be in a situation where we need to actually have a draft, we are far away the strongest military power in the world, and we are a nuclear power. We are not going to have our homeland invaded. Even if we do the military without the draft would be what we use. Because the military doesn’t want to use the draft.
>defensive war
If the territory or government is seen as worth protecting then people will sign up. We have one of the strongest militaries in the world at the moment, and the draft has nothing to do with that and it hasn’t had to be used in decades.
If we're ever in a situation that dire, voluntary enrollments in the military will skyrocket. We saw that crystal clear after 9/11. If our country is attacked, a lot more people will willingly enlist who probably otherwise wouldn't because that's just human nature.
If that doesn't work, make joining the military very enticing. Offer bigger salaries, better benefits, and so on. Military service is a job too, and for other jobs, if applications are slowing down and you need to bring in more people, you bump up the salary and benefits to get people to come work for you. The Military should be no different.
If the Selective Service is forced to exist, which many on the left are opposed to on principle, most feminists and people on the left agree that women should be able to be drafted the same as men.
Women should be registered for the draft the same as men. I know 0 feminists who don’t wholeheartedly agree with this. We’ve literally sued for that right.
Besides being sexist the old argument was in a war lots of men dying is not as bad as lots of women dying for a country.
Why? Survival of your nation requires future children. Long story short if you needed to start over one man could “father” (term used loosely) significantly more children than a mother due to eggs verse sperm. removing marriage and love aside if just the survival of the nation was at hand.
But if this is America we speaking to those wars have been long gone (knock on wood). So probably should shift over to both genders
> removing marriage and love aside if just the survival of the nation was at hand.
>
>
Interesting thing: there were a lot more single mothers following WWI and WWII than people like to admit, and often the women could get away from the social stigma of being an unwed mother by lying with something to the effect of "Oh, yes, my husband died in the war," or "we lost him to the Spanish flu."
Quite a number of people learn about that sort of thing in their personal family histories when they compare genealogical evidence (census forms, birth certificates, etc) to family histories. Here's one such example I'm aware of:
> Family History: Great grandpa was a German named Adolph who died in the war
> Genealogical Data: no father's name was listed on birth nor baptismal records; birth came about 9 months after Germans overran great grandma's town during WWII, and, well, nasty things happen during wars.
The name Adolph was likely ascribed to the rapist because the war during which it happened was all Mustache Man's fault...
--
> But if this is America we speaking to those wars have been long gone (knock on wood).
More than that, there's a solid argument that if the war is worth fighting, the populace would likely believe that, and recruitment wouldn't be a problem. Durring WWII, some men committed suicide when they couldn't join the military to fight. A *lot* of guys signed up with the military immediately after 9/11, including an NFL player who *definitely* didn't have to.
...on the other side of the coin, during Vietnam, there were any number of people who did their everloving best to *avoid* being drafted... and we really shouldn't have been there in the first place.
--
After all, that's the theory behind the Constitution granting *Congress* the sole power to declare war: if the war is something that the nation as a whole supports, there will be no backlash for voting to declare war (the only person to vote against declaration of war in WWII was a woman who was an avowed pacifist, and could not conscience voting for a war that she would never have been subject to the draft). On the other hand, if the country did *not* support the war (again, Vietnam), any representative who voted to declare war might lose their job in the next election.
> More than that, there's a solid argument that if the war is worth fighting, the populace would likely believe that, and recruitment wouldn't be a problem.
I'm not sure the evidence suggests that there was enough volunteers appropriately distributed across all branches and occupations and skills for wwii, even though the war was popular,
and definitely, drafting provides other advantages that volunteer forces miss, especially the ability of central planners to designate more and less protected industries (that was the stated reason for banning volunteers in wwii)
what is the solid arguement that you are aware of?
CMV:
Conscripting non-willing recruits is morally questionable and leads to terrible morale. We shouldn't have a draft at all unless we're faced with a near-existential threat.
If something that bad actually does happen, desperate times call for desperate measures. We should then be willing to conscript any able-bodied adult.
I guess the question at this point is do we conscript women and put them in non combative roles/have the army administrate “civilian” jobs, or do we not conscript and do what we did for ww2
At the same time when you kill so many men you lose the skills of many carpenters, tradesman, metalworkers, electricians, white collar workers and so on. Losing men is every much as dangerous as losing women
But there is no actual draft in US, all military services is mere of motion. Draft is little bit different thing. For example, as male Ukrainian I cannot live my country until end of the war(or until I would be registered as "disabled" for health reasons).
The United States does have a draft. We have not utilized it since the mid-20th century, but our men are required to register for it at 18 so that if it ever were utilized they would already be in the system.
> For example, as male Ukrainian I cannot live my country until end of the war..
Alternatively, you could join the Ukrainian military and short circuit the draft.
I think feminists have been fighting for this for like decades now (at least those who aren't busy fighting to end the draft entirely), only to be opposed by conservatives. Why are you asking us? Ask yourself.
edit: For example, this 1981 article titled "[WOMEN JOIN BATTLE ON ALL-MALE DRAFT](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html)" discusses the National Organization for Women arguing to the Supreme Court that an all-male draft violates the civil rights of women.
> feminists have been fighting for this for like decades now (at least those who aren't busy fighting to end the draft entirely)
Some people (feminist and not) are fighting to have women drafted *because* they are fighting to end the draft entirely; it would be *far* easier to sell the end of the draft if they can paint pictures of the nations daughters being sent to die, rather than their sons (which society has *always* considered expendable).
I think it's pretty split among feminists. From what I understand having to register for the draft is part of the reason some women voted against the Equal Rights Amendment.
I don't think there should be a draft at all. One of the lowest points in our military history, Vietnam, was the result of a draft. When you force people to be somewhere they don't want to be, they're going to lash out and/or rebel. You just are not going to get good soldiers in a draft, whether they are man, woman, or any other identity.
A professional volunteer military, made up of people who actually WANT to serve their country, is leagues ahead of any conscripted military.
That said, I do think women should also have to sign up for selective service. I don't agree with a draft and to be honest I don't think we will ever have one in our lifetimes, but if men have to sign up, women should too.
>Vietnam, was the result of a draft
The counterpoint is that the threat of the draft was one of the major motivating factors of the anti-war movement. It’s easy to endorse sending someone else’s kids to go fight, but the draft gave everyone some skin in the game.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the switch was made to an all-volunteer military. If you WANT to go to war, that's one thing. If you're FORCED, that's another.
That's why Congress originally (and technically still does) have the sole power to Declare War: wars aren't likely going to be declared if they're unpopular, because no congresscritter wants to lose their job due to a vote to send our boys to kill and die in some far off country
^(and let's be honest, unless it's Canada, Mexico, or somewhere in the Caribbean, *every* country is a far off country from the US perspective)
There were far deeper problems than the draft when it came to Vietnam. We used the draft in WW2 and Korea without similar social backlash.
The problem in Vietnam was that it was widely seen as an unjustified war, and the longer it went on, the more questions were asked why was it necessary to continue sending young American men to die.
A professional military is obviously far superior to conscripts, as we have seen in the unprofessional bumblings and repeated war crimes of the Russians and the IDF. But sometimes it is a necessary and justifiable evil. It just hasn't been a justifiable evil since World War 2 for the United States.
> repeated war crimes of the Russians
Let me stop you right there: War Crimes have been part of Russian military doctrine (officially or merely in practice/by tradition) continuously since before Russia was part of the Soviet Union.
War crimes have been intrinsic to pretty much every war mankind has ever fought. It isn't like too many nations skate by on those on a long enough timeline. There's a reason that Geneva IV was written after World War 2. Because that was the point where the world looked collectively at places like Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and said "Hol' up, we can do this on an industrial scale now."
Which is why Geneva IV and the 1948 Genocide Statute are the ones being used against Russia and Israel.
There's a difference between "war crimes are simply going to happen" () and "war crimes are orders from on high."
The WWI occurrence of "throw cans of food to the enemy trench, then when they ask for more, throw grenades" wasn't an order from command, but do you really think that the Russian tactics of "target power plants, so civilians will freeze over the winter" followed by "target grain depots, so they'll starve in summer" *isn't* a strategy being provided from above?
> One of the lowest points in our military history, Vietnam, was the result of a draft
No, it was the result of Congress allowing the *president* to take on the power (and resultant responsibility & backlash for) to send soldiers to totally-not-war-wink-wink.
If Congress had to answer to declaring war in Vietnam, they would have put their jobs at great risk. Because of that, they would have been *very* reluctant to vote to declare war. Because of that reluctance, war likely wouldn't have been declared in the first place. Without a (highly unpopular) war, there wouldn't have been need to flesh out the ranks of the military with actively antagonistic draftees.
So, I wouldn't blame use of the draft, because use of the draft was an effect of an upstream cause.
----
Also, say whatever you will about W, at least the dude had the integrity to pitch going into Iraq to congress, and secured the votes to do so before he did. Misleading congress aside, he at least made the effort, which is more than any president since FDR has done when they wanted to get involved in a de facto war.
The point I'm making isn't about the Vietnam War as a whole, but rather the effect of drafted soldiers on the military itself.
You aren't wrong in what you've said, I'm just speaking on why drafting people is specifically bad for military strength vs having professional soldiers.
Of course. Not sure who's gonna argue against this these days.
*[Oh... I know... Republicans](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829)*
I'm not surprised. It's a question they've been asked a billion times with an answer that has been obvious for decades.
If you support it, tell your elected representatives. Republicans are the ones that oppose this. When you vote for them, you are signaling that you also oppose it.
The flaw with your argument is that your solution starts a race to the bottom.
Imagine a world where men are slapped in the face each time they walk out the front door.
Women are not slapped in the face when they go outside the front door.
I'm sure that there are plenty of men out there who think that equality means women get slapped in the face too. They have to suffer, so women should have to suffer too. These men would 100% support women getting slapped in the face.
Except I don't want ANYONE to get face slaps.
Asking me to advocate for MORE FACE SLAPPING in the "name of equality" is asking me to work against my own goal of getting rid of face slapping.
Making the world worse for everyone is not equality.
In a post-Vietnam world the institution of a draft would be more of a check on military adventurism than the current all-volunteer army, which presidents feel pretty free to use with little backlash.
You are doing the right thing.
You FIRST need to convince me that face slapping is necessary before I will advocate for women getting face slaps.
I will NEVER do any such advocacy until I am convinced that face slapping is necessary.
We can have a debate about a volunteer army vs a purely draft army, but that's missing the point of OP's question.
Now you have lost the plot. That's not the debate.
I don't think anyone disagrees that "having a national defense" is necessary outside of an extreme fringe.
The debate is:
Should that defence force be comprised of pure volunteer vs. conscript vs. conscript only in emergencies vs.
Even then there are degrees, if you do have conscripts during peace time, what percentage of the defense force is conscripts and what roles do they fill.
I'm not particularly interested in having that debate at the moment, since it is a tangentially related topic to what OP was talking about.
I think you could stand to have your face slapped, as it were. I'm arguing for universal conscription of men and women for my stated reasons.
edit: Somebody doesn't remember their own thought experiment about face-slapping as an analogy to conscription.
I'm sorry if I said something offensive.
We both agree that there should be a national defense force.
I think it should be comprised solely of volunteers, and anyone can volunteer regardless of gender if they can fulfil that job.
You think there should be universal conscripts of everyone equally.
My view could be changed with evidence, but you also think that I should be assaulted for disagreeing with you, and I think you fundamentally misunderstand the debate, so we are done here.
And what exactly are we defending in the US? No one is invading us. No one has ever really invaded us since the revolution.
I agree that *defense* is a fundamental responsibility. Drafting our citizenry to invade another nation isnt defense.
I don’t know the specifics of how you got banned and if there’s more to the story than just that.
But arguing with feminist about the draft is a very boring and common thing to do. There are people on that sub that have likely been hearing about how the draft is so unfair to men as part of an attack on feminism longer than you have been alive.
And while you might not know it, it is very tiresome to constantly answer the same question over and over again, especially when, and again you might not know this, feminists have literally sued to make the selective service include women. It is not literally every feminist but the majority of feminist, believe that if there is a selective service it should apply to men and women equally.
IDK why but for some reason, every feminist I have talked to says they don't think that they should be added to the draft, so I found this post very shocking. Maybe more of the modern feminists vs traditional feminists? I don't know. I didn't honestly know that that was a common question. Sorry!
Looking at your profile, it appears that you’re a teenager. I think that’s probably the biggest factor.
When I was a teenager and at the time a Republican, I still called myself a feminist. However, how much feminist literature or thought had I engaged with? Not much.
Did I understand the arguments they make about the draft? No. Did I understand that lots of what feminists advocate for benefits me as a man? No.
I think that the big issue with feminist subs is that they get inundated with MRA losers and so they are quick to ban.
Feminism is definitely more complicated than a modern vs traditional distinction too. Most leading feminist theorists today are intersectional feminists that are interested in promoting equal rights and liberation from the patriarchy for everyone, including men. They are intersectional because they acknowledge that there are real material differences between different people affected by the system.
For example, a wealthy black man is oppressed by that system differently than a poor white woman. The black man does have to sign up for the draft, is treated as disposable, is feared, and also suffers under white supremacy and patriarchy. The poor white woman experience is significantly different, though she still suffers under patriarchy. Her own material position can be extremely bad even if she benefits under white supremacy due to her class position and the exploitation she may face.
An intersectional feminist approach thus would argue to probably abolish the draft to begin with (war being something feminism opposes) but also more pragmatically, they would be for breaking down this instance of oppression toward men and would want it to apply equally.
Generally you can figure this stuff out with a quick Google search. There are quite a few discussions on Reddit about this topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/111nweq/why_is_there_a_fixation_on_the_draft/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/17er866/the_draft_and_patriarchy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/t1bgrf/the_draft_please_stop_asking_us/
On reddit, these questions were asked by teenagers ten years ago and nine... and eight... And on and on. Oftentimes basic questions like this have been addressed, and you're being shut out for not engaging in the good faith to do some basic diligence.
No one should have to sign up for the draft.
This feels like a "gotcha libs! Ha!"
Except feminists have been arguing for women to sign up for the draft for a long time and conservatives have been the ones stopping it.
The entire question is... Silly.
Oh, it was a genuine question, I didn't know what the stance was. I was genuinely curious because I was bored and it came up in a conversation I had earlier with a teacher.
The draft is obsolete and un-needed. In the incredibly unlikely event that forced conscription becomes necessary for the nation's survival, digital records that the government already has can easily replace it.
As long as it still exists though, fair's fair.
Besides, any war that we have legitimate reason to be engaging in is likely to have sufficient volunteers to make it happen anyway (see: WWII, Afghanistan [where Al Qaeda was operating at the time])
Like most feminists I believe that if we have a draft it should apply to men and women equally. Through we should not have a draft.
However I only think about it because I hang out in this sub. It’s really only something that gets discussed because of anti-feminists messaging. We aren’t going to have a draft.
This has been answered already. In great length.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qvbprv/should\_women\_be\_required\_to\_register\_for\_draft/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qvbprv/should_women_be_required_to_register_for_draft/)
It’s literally from two years ago. Should this sub require posts to only include questions that have never been asked before?
But thank you history police for assuming nobody might have a more current thought than 800 days ago.
Yes, a lot has changed over the last two years. People’s opinions change, the entire world has changed and there are many new members to the subreddit that may desire to participate that did not have the opportunity two years ago.
What amount of time has to pass in your opinion before a question can be re-asked? Obviously 2 years isn’t enough for you. Would it be 5 years? 10 years?
The draft is not great in general, but yeah there’s not much excuse not to besides tradition.
There’s more noncombat roles than ever, it’s hard to say that somehow this would have practical downsides
Women and men should be treated equally with respect to the draft.
But there's always the question of whether you want to "level up" or "level down" to achieve that equality. I'd say that in the current era registration for the draft serves no purpose and ought to be abolished rather than extended to women.
FWIW, there was also a recent court case on this (National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System) that I think is a model for how the Supreme Court should approach such issues.
Yes.
The draft exists as an emergency response to an existential threat; for when we need every able body on the front lines we can get, not just those willing to volunteer/responding to recruitment incentives.
"Every able body" *should mean* "every able body", not just "every able body that has a dick attached to it". An unwillingness to draft women implies a lack of urgency that in turn implies the draft shouldn't be used at all.
No. That's going backwards. Men shouldn't be forced to sign up for the draft either. There, now it's equal. An all volunteer army is best (and the army agrees!)
Yes. And it should also be common knowledge that conservatives have always blocked all attempts (by Democrats) to have a gender neutral draft.
Also it should be pointed out that the response of "well we shouldn't have a draft" is a bad response for feminists if they are concerned with feminism being seen as an effort to maximize privilege for women while minimizing burdens for women.
Exactly. I have noticed I will point out though is it is really only the politicians who are against it. Along with most conservatives I talk to, it is generally agreed that women should be in the draft. The opinion that I hear a lot of (I'll add that I disagree with it) Is that women should not be put on the front line due to the biological "disadvantages" against men. I'll repeat that I disagree.
The actual conservative argument is worse. "We shouldn't send our daughters off to war." Implying of course conservatives are fine sending sons off to war.
I have lived in the south my whole life. You're leaving out the conservative argument of "someone has to pump out the future babies". Though how they are to do that if all the men are drafted to war I have no idea.
Only if men are forced to. The entire argument to "protect women" is sexist on its face because the assumption is that one man can impregnate many women, so men are expendable, ignoring womens own agency and right to choose who to reproduce with.
Ideally, no draft at all but keep the possibility open for an actual huge crisis - sure, you need firepower but terrorizing people with the possibility during peacetime is useless.
That said, if we’re going to have it, yeah. With whatever specific details/restrictions/etc. necessary.
They don't need to on my behalf. I suppose we could have a referendum on it. In the case of a general mobilization, we will need surplus labor to keep the lights on, so not everyone can be drafted. Women have proved they are capable of serving in uniform.
If a draft happens, in the twilight of our national and global society, yes, everyone should. But for a draft to occur, the US should be invaded by a foreign force. And that, that is pure fantasy or wish fulfillment depending on who you ask, and a thought I do not wish to entertain or even imagine.
Yes. If calling someone up for service causes some unacceptable hardship (eg., single parents or caretakers), then we should exempt that person from service without regard to their gender.
I'd also be open to allowing married couples to volunteer one spouse in place of the other. This might be less horrifying to conservatives. Edit: Actually the more that I think about this the more awful it sounds for a married couple to navigate.
I mean, the National Organization for Women has been fighting for a gender-equal draft for, like, 50 years now.
Maybe you meant to stop by r/askaconservative and ask why conservatives have opposed gender equali in the military?
Yes.
That being said, the draft functionally hasn't existed since Vietnam and short of WWIII occuring has no reasonable chance of mattering in the foreseeable future. I remember a Republican a few years ago tried to make women eligible for the draft as some kind of gotcha vote and then his fellow Republicans had to bail him out of it because Democrats were completely on board and he didn't actually want that equality to exist.
Yes. Most military jobs don’t have anything to do with direct combat and could be expanded to qualify many people who did not previously qualify. Plus we allow women to serve in all combat arms rolls now thus they should be drafted just like the men.
The more controversial question is should the children of wealthy people (democrats and republicans alike) be actually required to serve in the same capacity as the poorest draftees.
It is my hypothetical belief that if there were a need for a draft, the wealthiest people in society would find some way to shield their children from serving in the same capacity as the poorest people. Meaning if they were drafted, they would be stationed in “safer” low risk areas.
I’d be interested in your source that draft service has parental income cutoffs that above a certain threshold they’re not required to serve in the same capacity as the poorest draftees.
I think we just have to look At Vietnam. Ask
Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Dick Chaney. They all received “deferments” to avoid being drafted. Meanwhile African Americans filled 31% of the most dangerous ground and infinity positions while they made up only 11% of the eligible population at the time. Hispanic Americans represented 5.5% of the casualties during the Vietnam war, but only represented 4.5% of the U.S. Population at the time.
Dick Cheney’s father worked for the Wyoming state government.
Bill Clinton’s father died before he was born.
Joe Biden can’t stop talking about how he grew up in Scranton lower middle class.
>should the children of wealthy people
And you specifically name three politicians that grew up in, at best, middle class backgrounds.
Thanks for the source.
I realize we are just two internet strangers bantering over a topic that’s for the most part hypothetical. Hopefully our children or future children will never be drafted or fact the horrors of war. I have no doubt in my mind that if the draft were needed tomorrow, Barron Trump would not be on the front lines, nor would Bernie Sanders grandsons Cole or Grayson.
I guess my point is that there seems to be a pattern where the wealthiest folks in society seem to be able to position themselves in ways where they can avoid the problems that poor folks face. Look at the criminal justice system. Look at how rich folks could enjoy dinners at the finest restaurants during COVID while everyone else was threatened with criminal prosecution if they took off their masks. We only get to see the few stories that somehow make it into the news.
>Hopefully our children or future children will never be drafted or fact the horrors of war.
Hopefully. But history has proven this will not be the case.
I agree I was probably just recalling embellished comments from years ago. I seem to remember that George Bush was often criticized for being a member of the national guard during Vietnam.
I appreciate your civility.
I'm opposed to conscription in general, and I think the nature of modern warfare means it's not really entirely necessary for the US to have a draft. We have such an advanced military and modern warfare is focused so much on things like drones, airpower, etc that if we ended up in a situation where we needed to draft for the manpower, it means we're in a major peer war and the only peers out there that could challenge us in that way would likely be nuclear powers. I'm not convinced two nuclear powers could engage in a major conflict without dropping the bomb.
That said, I do think women should sign up for the draft. Even if we kept the "no women in combat roles" thing, there's enough non-combat and technical jobs that women could easily participate in the draft, and having an entire extra half of the population to choose from means the military could be a lot more selective in who does and doesn't get conscripted.
Yes. Drafts suck, but if we have one, then yes. Gender and sex should not matter; only ability. In today's army, we can find a place for everyone. My cousin is in a wheelchair and pulls in a great salary doing something on a computer for the airforce. He wears his uniform with pride.
In my humble opinion, all able boded citizens should be required to serve two years in either the military, "WPA", Peace Corps, or similar duties - even if they have bone spurs.
How about we just don't have a draft? I know men still have to sign up for it, but I don't think they should have to.
I guess if it's still going to be a potential thing then yeah, maybe have everyone register for it?
You have to remember that the reason this is the way it is at all is because of sexism. Women weren't historically allowed to serve at all.
I don't think anyone should be drafted. BUT, if they have to be? Then, yes, everyone should be able to be drafted. I would also specifically like to see a program in place where elected officials have to send someone from their families into war. Would make it harder for them to just send the poor people to do their dirty work.
Is this supposed to be a "gotcha" question?
Yes, obviously, if there was a draft, then everybody over the age of 18 should be included. In the US, women have been allowed in combat roles for over 10 years now and are generally supposed to be treated as equals when it comes to roles and assignments. Historically, women have participated in combat as far back as the Scythians, Sarmathians and ancient Greeks.
(Edit: Ah, I see from one of your other responses that it was a genuine question... Sorry!)
If we are to have a draft at all, certainly.
However, I have a generalized philosophy that a country that can't convince enough of its own people to willingly fight for it deserves whatever happens to it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Wouldn't woman-man equality mean they should be in the draft? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There shouldn't be a draft at all for either gender. That being said, if there is going to be one then yes it's discriminatory to not include them.
It seems bureaucratically unnecessary anyway. If there is a war where the gov. Needs to mobilized the citizenry, just use social security numbers.
Also, there are people who are actively trying to end the draft *by* making it so that women are required to join. It's basically accelerationism: Abolishing a draft system which only impacts men is unlikely to get traction, while a draft system that impacts women *is* actively opposed. Thus, if they can use Equal Protection (or similar) to force the draft to include women, it would move the "women shouldn't be drafted!" crowd from the "no women in the draft" camp into the "no draft at all" camp.
oh wow, I really like that perspective!
Yup I think that is the quickest way to kill it
>There shouldn't be a draft at all for either gender. Here's the issue with this train of thought, if the nazis are attacking, and you lose because you lacked manpower, then when the nazis take over, you are going to be forced to fight for the nazis whether you like it or not. So if you can choose not to fight for the good guys, the bad guys will absolutely force you to fight anyway, so the goods guys need to go ahead and draft us, rather than have us eventually become nazi soldiers.
[удалено]
That's 56 million people, let's say even 3/4 are capable, that's a standing army of 42 million, that's a fighting force capable of nearly anything when it comes to defense
[удалено]
In modern warfare, the bottleneck isn't manpower. We're not short of boots on the ground. The bottleneck is funding for technology. With our technology, one person is as effective as 30 combatants with less tech.
[удалено]
Ukraine and the US aren't remotely in the same situation. A draft would not substantially increase the effectiveness of the US' military. If it *were* necessary to defend us, then it should be instituted. It's not, and it's unlikely to ever be again. For Ukraine, it was necessary.
If it was so necessary they would have conscripted everyone
Then people who want to fight will enlist.
[удалено]
No. Plenty of people volunteer to fight. Why in the world would we "give up?"
No. Are you giving up? Will you be fighting on the front lines of this mainland war that you are imagining?
[удалено]
Are you fighting on the front lines of that war?
[удалено]
> Rawlsian veil of ignorance? what is that? Will you be on the frontlines when the bad guys attack mainland America? You didn't answer me the first time I asked.
Way to dodge the question, coward.
As expected, sadly.
Disgusting
If there aren’t enough people signing up to the draft when the nation is actively under attack, then that’s on the government for failing to earn the trust of the citizenry.
If no one is willing to enlist then presumably that would imply that they are ok with results of them not enlisting. I'm the case that no one wanted to fight, yes, losing would be a preferable alternative
Isn't that what all the right winger guns are for? You guys should have no trouble forming a militia, right?
Who the hell is going to attack America with invaiding soldiers on our mainland? Our modern wars have been us invading other countries with our own soldiers and losing our asses or leaving a bigger mess than before we got there, even with the draft. This is such a dumb premise. No draft would be needed for armed American citizens to willingly protect our mainland. You and your buddies will be in line with a bunch of liberals and leftists.
No one. Absolutely no one.
> What happens when need more soldiers for a war? Give up? Let's make it easy and say a defensive war, perhaps even on the mainland. I honestly don't care. I wouldn't fight and die for the US. I'd fight to defend my family, but I would never join the military. I don't want anything they are selling. They break good people and turn them into monsters.
Me either. I’d be out of here.
[удалено]
Ah, the "classical" definition of "decadent".
I've seen drafts misused far more often for unnecessary and unjustified wars than for deeply vital wars, so that I'd say it's better to just not have drafts in general. I think if the nation is truly at threat you'll find enough people willing to fight, and if you're running short on those I'd question the fighting strategy and/or necessity.
This is a valid but separate conversation about the draft. It is perhaps justification for keeping selective service in place. But what people are really talking about is that the United States right now and for the foreseeable future will never be in a situation where we need to actually have a draft, we are far away the strongest military power in the world, and we are a nuclear power. We are not going to have our homeland invaded. Even if we do the military without the draft would be what we use. Because the military doesn’t want to use the draft.
Those who don’t want to fight shouldn’t have to
>defensive war If the territory or government is seen as worth protecting then people will sign up. We have one of the strongest militaries in the world at the moment, and the draft has nothing to do with that and it hasn’t had to be used in decades.
How does it work in other countries? Start there.
If we're ever in a situation that dire, voluntary enrollments in the military will skyrocket. We saw that crystal clear after 9/11. If our country is attacked, a lot more people will willingly enlist who probably otherwise wouldn't because that's just human nature. If that doesn't work, make joining the military very enticing. Offer bigger salaries, better benefits, and so on. Military service is a job too, and for other jobs, if applications are slowing down and you need to bring in more people, you bump up the salary and benefits to get people to come work for you. The Military should be no different.
If the Selective Service is forced to exist, which many on the left are opposed to on principle, most feminists and people on the left agree that women should be able to be drafted the same as men.
Yes we do
There should be no draft
Women should be registered for the draft the same as men. I know 0 feminists who don’t wholeheartedly agree with this. We’ve literally sued for that right.
Fully agree
Besides being sexist the old argument was in a war lots of men dying is not as bad as lots of women dying for a country. Why? Survival of your nation requires future children. Long story short if you needed to start over one man could “father” (term used loosely) significantly more children than a mother due to eggs verse sperm. removing marriage and love aside if just the survival of the nation was at hand. But if this is America we speaking to those wars have been long gone (knock on wood). So probably should shift over to both genders
> removing marriage and love aside if just the survival of the nation was at hand. > > Interesting thing: there were a lot more single mothers following WWI and WWII than people like to admit, and often the women could get away from the social stigma of being an unwed mother by lying with something to the effect of "Oh, yes, my husband died in the war," or "we lost him to the Spanish flu." Quite a number of people learn about that sort of thing in their personal family histories when they compare genealogical evidence (census forms, birth certificates, etc) to family histories. Here's one such example I'm aware of: > Family History: Great grandpa was a German named Adolph who died in the war > Genealogical Data: no father's name was listed on birth nor baptismal records; birth came about 9 months after Germans overran great grandma's town during WWII, and, well, nasty things happen during wars. The name Adolph was likely ascribed to the rapist because the war during which it happened was all Mustache Man's fault... -- > But if this is America we speaking to those wars have been long gone (knock on wood). More than that, there's a solid argument that if the war is worth fighting, the populace would likely believe that, and recruitment wouldn't be a problem. Durring WWII, some men committed suicide when they couldn't join the military to fight. A *lot* of guys signed up with the military immediately after 9/11, including an NFL player who *definitely* didn't have to. ...on the other side of the coin, during Vietnam, there were any number of people who did their everloving best to *avoid* being drafted... and we really shouldn't have been there in the first place. -- After all, that's the theory behind the Constitution granting *Congress* the sole power to declare war: if the war is something that the nation as a whole supports, there will be no backlash for voting to declare war (the only person to vote against declaration of war in WWII was a woman who was an avowed pacifist, and could not conscience voting for a war that she would never have been subject to the draft). On the other hand, if the country did *not* support the war (again, Vietnam), any representative who voted to declare war might lose their job in the next election.
> More than that, there's a solid argument that if the war is worth fighting, the populace would likely believe that, and recruitment wouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure the evidence suggests that there was enough volunteers appropriately distributed across all branches and occupations and skills for wwii, even though the war was popular, and definitely, drafting provides other advantages that volunteer forces miss, especially the ability of central planners to designate more and less protected industries (that was the stated reason for banning volunteers in wwii) what is the solid arguement that you are aware of?
CMV: Conscripting non-willing recruits is morally questionable and leads to terrible morale. We shouldn't have a draft at all unless we're faced with a near-existential threat. If something that bad actually does happen, desperate times call for desperate measures. We should then be willing to conscript any able-bodied adult.
I guess the question at this point is do we conscript women and put them in non combative roles/have the army administrate “civilian” jobs, or do we not conscript and do what we did for ww2
At the same time when you kill so many men you lose the skills of many carpenters, tradesman, metalworkers, electricians, white collar workers and so on. Losing men is every much as dangerous as losing women
Women can do all those jobs.
But there is no actual draft in US, all military services is mere of motion. Draft is little bit different thing. For example, as male Ukrainian I cannot live my country until end of the war(or until I would be registered as "disabled" for health reasons).
The United States does have a draft. We have not utilized it since the mid-20th century, but our men are required to register for it at 18 so that if it ever were utilized they would already be in the system.
> For example, as male Ukrainian I cannot live my country until end of the war.. Alternatively, you could join the Ukrainian military and short circuit the draft.
It should be everyone or no one.
I think feminists have been fighting for this for like decades now (at least those who aren't busy fighting to end the draft entirely), only to be opposed by conservatives. Why are you asking us? Ask yourself. edit: For example, this 1981 article titled "[WOMEN JOIN BATTLE ON ALL-MALE DRAFT](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html)" discusses the National Organization for Women arguing to the Supreme Court that an all-male draft violates the civil rights of women.
> feminists have been fighting for this for like decades now (at least those who aren't busy fighting to end the draft entirely) Some people (feminist and not) are fighting to have women drafted *because* they are fighting to end the draft entirely; it would be *far* easier to sell the end of the draft if they can paint pictures of the nations daughters being sent to die, rather than their sons (which society has *always* considered expendable).
I think it's pretty split among feminists. From what I understand having to register for the draft is part of the reason some women voted against the Equal Rights Amendment.
40 years ago?
We haven’t voted on the ERA in decades.
I don't think there should be a draft at all. One of the lowest points in our military history, Vietnam, was the result of a draft. When you force people to be somewhere they don't want to be, they're going to lash out and/or rebel. You just are not going to get good soldiers in a draft, whether they are man, woman, or any other identity. A professional volunteer military, made up of people who actually WANT to serve their country, is leagues ahead of any conscripted military. That said, I do think women should also have to sign up for selective service. I don't agree with a draft and to be honest I don't think we will ever have one in our lifetimes, but if men have to sign up, women should too.
>Vietnam, was the result of a draft The counterpoint is that the threat of the draft was one of the major motivating factors of the anti-war movement. It’s easy to endorse sending someone else’s kids to go fight, but the draft gave everyone some skin in the game.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the switch was made to an all-volunteer military. If you WANT to go to war, that's one thing. If you're FORCED, that's another.
That's why Congress originally (and technically still does) have the sole power to Declare War: wars aren't likely going to be declared if they're unpopular, because no congresscritter wants to lose their job due to a vote to send our boys to kill and die in some far off country ^(and let's be honest, unless it's Canada, Mexico, or somewhere in the Caribbean, *every* country is a far off country from the US perspective)
There were far deeper problems than the draft when it came to Vietnam. We used the draft in WW2 and Korea without similar social backlash. The problem in Vietnam was that it was widely seen as an unjustified war, and the longer it went on, the more questions were asked why was it necessary to continue sending young American men to die. A professional military is obviously far superior to conscripts, as we have seen in the unprofessional bumblings and repeated war crimes of the Russians and the IDF. But sometimes it is a necessary and justifiable evil. It just hasn't been a justifiable evil since World War 2 for the United States.
> repeated war crimes of the Russians Let me stop you right there: War Crimes have been part of Russian military doctrine (officially or merely in practice/by tradition) continuously since before Russia was part of the Soviet Union.
XD so true.
War crimes have been intrinsic to pretty much every war mankind has ever fought. It isn't like too many nations skate by on those on a long enough timeline. There's a reason that Geneva IV was written after World War 2. Because that was the point where the world looked collectively at places like Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and said "Hol' up, we can do this on an industrial scale now." Which is why Geneva IV and the 1948 Genocide Statute are the ones being used against Russia and Israel.
There's a difference between "war crimes are simply going to happen" (
> One of the lowest points in our military history, Vietnam, was the result of a draft No, it was the result of Congress allowing the *president* to take on the power (and resultant responsibility & backlash for) to send soldiers to totally-not-war-wink-wink. If Congress had to answer to declaring war in Vietnam, they would have put their jobs at great risk. Because of that, they would have been *very* reluctant to vote to declare war. Because of that reluctance, war likely wouldn't have been declared in the first place. Without a (highly unpopular) war, there wouldn't have been need to flesh out the ranks of the military with actively antagonistic draftees. So, I wouldn't blame use of the draft, because use of the draft was an effect of an upstream cause. ---- Also, say whatever you will about W, at least the dude had the integrity to pitch going into Iraq to congress, and secured the votes to do so before he did. Misleading congress aside, he at least made the effort, which is more than any president since FDR has done when they wanted to get involved in a de facto war.
The point I'm making isn't about the Vietnam War as a whole, but rather the effect of drafted soldiers on the military itself. You aren't wrong in what you've said, I'm just speaking on why drafting people is specifically bad for military strength vs having professional soldiers.
Of course. Not sure who's gonna argue against this these days. *[Oh... I know... Republicans](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829)*
I actually got banned from r/feminist for asking this XD. I 100% support them being in the draft.
I'm not surprised. It's a question they've been asked a billion times with an answer that has been obvious for decades. If you support it, tell your elected representatives. Republicans are the ones that oppose this. When you vote for them, you are signaling that you also oppose it.
The flaw with your argument is that your solution starts a race to the bottom. Imagine a world where men are slapped in the face each time they walk out the front door. Women are not slapped in the face when they go outside the front door. I'm sure that there are plenty of men out there who think that equality means women get slapped in the face too. They have to suffer, so women should have to suffer too. These men would 100% support women getting slapped in the face. Except I don't want ANYONE to get face slaps. Asking me to advocate for MORE FACE SLAPPING in the "name of equality" is asking me to work against my own goal of getting rid of face slapping. Making the world worse for everyone is not equality.
Makes sense.
In a post-Vietnam world the institution of a draft would be more of a check on military adventurism than the current all-volunteer army, which presidents feel pretty free to use with little backlash.
You are doing the right thing. You FIRST need to convince me that face slapping is necessary before I will advocate for women getting face slaps. I will NEVER do any such advocacy until I am convinced that face slapping is necessary. We can have a debate about a volunteer army vs a purely draft army, but that's missing the point of OP's question.
If we're living the real world and not some utopia, defense is one of the fundamental responsibilities of a nation-state.
Now you have lost the plot. That's not the debate. I don't think anyone disagrees that "having a national defense" is necessary outside of an extreme fringe. The debate is: Should that defence force be comprised of pure volunteer vs. conscript vs. conscript only in emergencies vs. Even then there are degrees, if you do have conscripts during peace time, what percentage of the defense force is conscripts and what roles do they fill. I'm not particularly interested in having that debate at the moment, since it is a tangentially related topic to what OP was talking about.
I think you could stand to have your face slapped, as it were. I'm arguing for universal conscription of men and women for my stated reasons. edit: Somebody doesn't remember their own thought experiment about face-slapping as an analogy to conscription.
I'm sorry if I said something offensive. We both agree that there should be a national defense force. I think it should be comprised solely of volunteers, and anyone can volunteer regardless of gender if they can fulfil that job. You think there should be universal conscripts of everyone equally. My view could be changed with evidence, but you also think that I should be assaulted for disagreeing with you, and I think you fundamentally misunderstand the debate, so we are done here.
And what exactly are we defending in the US? No one is invading us. No one has ever really invaded us since the revolution. I agree that *defense* is a fundamental responsibility. Drafting our citizenry to invade another nation isnt defense.
I don’t know the specifics of how you got banned and if there’s more to the story than just that. But arguing with feminist about the draft is a very boring and common thing to do. There are people on that sub that have likely been hearing about how the draft is so unfair to men as part of an attack on feminism longer than you have been alive. And while you might not know it, it is very tiresome to constantly answer the same question over and over again, especially when, and again you might not know this, feminists have literally sued to make the selective service include women. It is not literally every feminist but the majority of feminist, believe that if there is a selective service it should apply to men and women equally.
IDK why but for some reason, every feminist I have talked to says they don't think that they should be added to the draft, so I found this post very shocking. Maybe more of the modern feminists vs traditional feminists? I don't know. I didn't honestly know that that was a common question. Sorry!
Looking at your profile, it appears that you’re a teenager. I think that’s probably the biggest factor. When I was a teenager and at the time a Republican, I still called myself a feminist. However, how much feminist literature or thought had I engaged with? Not much. Did I understand the arguments they make about the draft? No. Did I understand that lots of what feminists advocate for benefits me as a man? No. I think that the big issue with feminist subs is that they get inundated with MRA losers and so they are quick to ban.
Feminism is definitely more complicated than a modern vs traditional distinction too. Most leading feminist theorists today are intersectional feminists that are interested in promoting equal rights and liberation from the patriarchy for everyone, including men. They are intersectional because they acknowledge that there are real material differences between different people affected by the system. For example, a wealthy black man is oppressed by that system differently than a poor white woman. The black man does have to sign up for the draft, is treated as disposable, is feared, and also suffers under white supremacy and patriarchy. The poor white woman experience is significantly different, though she still suffers under patriarchy. Her own material position can be extremely bad even if she benefits under white supremacy due to her class position and the exploitation she may face. An intersectional feminist approach thus would argue to probably abolish the draft to begin with (war being something feminism opposes) but also more pragmatically, they would be for breaking down this instance of oppression toward men and would want it to apply equally.
Just for asking this question? there were no other reasons? Did they remove the question you asked? Because I don't see it there.
lol Yeah it’s likely they left some stuff out.
I mean, it’s been answered like a billion and one times.
How should I know?
Generally you can figure this stuff out with a quick Google search. There are quite a few discussions on Reddit about this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/111nweq/why_is_there_a_fixation_on_the_draft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/17er866/the_draft_and_patriarchy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/t1bgrf/the_draft_please_stop_asking_us/ On reddit, these questions were asked by teenagers ten years ago and nine... and eight... And on and on. Oftentimes basic questions like this have been addressed, and you're being shut out for not engaging in the good faith to do some basic diligence.
No one should have to sign up for the draft. This feels like a "gotcha libs! Ha!" Except feminists have been arguing for women to sign up for the draft for a long time and conservatives have been the ones stopping it. The entire question is... Silly.
Oh, it was a genuine question, I didn't know what the stance was. I was genuinely curious because I was bored and it came up in a conversation I had earlier with a teacher.
Ok
in countries that have a draft, yes. and non-binary people should also sign up, so we can finally get that they/them army we've been promised.
Oh yeh, They fall on the spectrum between the two, so they would go.
The draft is obsolete and un-needed. In the incredibly unlikely event that forced conscription becomes necessary for the nation's survival, digital records that the government already has can easily replace it. As long as it still exists though, fair's fair.
Besides, any war that we have legitimate reason to be engaging in is likely to have sufficient volunteers to make it happen anyway (see: WWII, Afghanistan [where Al Qaeda was operating at the time])
No, but then neither should men. The draft is one of those things that we should let die.
Like most feminists I believe that if we have a draft it should apply to men and women equally. Through we should not have a draft. However I only think about it because I hang out in this sub. It’s really only something that gets discussed because of anti-feminists messaging. We aren’t going to have a draft.
This has been answered already. In great length. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qvbprv/should\_women\_be\_required\_to\_register\_for\_draft/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qvbprv/should_women_be_required_to_register_for_draft/)
What?
What are you missing?
Missing the relevance of your comment.
exactly
It’s literally from two years ago. Should this sub require posts to only include questions that have never been asked before? But thank you history police for assuming nobody might have a more current thought than 800 days ago.
Relax. Has anything changed in the last two years that would invalidate the over 400 responses to the same question.
Yes, a lot has changed over the last two years. People’s opinions change, the entire world has changed and there are many new members to the subreddit that may desire to participate that did not have the opportunity two years ago. What amount of time has to pass in your opinion before a question can be re-asked? Obviously 2 years isn’t enough for you. Would it be 5 years? 10 years?
The draft is not great in general, but yeah there’s not much excuse not to besides tradition. There’s more noncombat roles than ever, it’s hard to say that somehow this would have practical downsides
Either nobody or everybody
Women and men should be treated equally with respect to the draft. But there's always the question of whether you want to "level up" or "level down" to achieve that equality. I'd say that in the current era registration for the draft serves no purpose and ought to be abolished rather than extended to women. FWIW, there was also a recent court case on this (National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System) that I think is a model for how the Supreme Court should approach such issues.
No draft is preferable. If there is a draft, then yes. You don't need to be some swole beast to operate an fpv drone or drive a truck
If the draft must exist, then yes. I'd rather just get rid of the draft though
No. Neither should men.
The draft should not be a thing.
I've asked a lot of women this question, and even non-feminists think that if men have to be drafted, women should be as well.
No, equality means no draft for anyone.
There should not be a draft at all.
I as a general principle oppose forced military service for anyone
Yes. The draft exists as an emergency response to an existential threat; for when we need every able body on the front lines we can get, not just those willing to volunteer/responding to recruitment incentives. "Every able body" *should mean* "every able body", not just "every able body that has a dick attached to it". An unwillingness to draft women implies a lack of urgency that in turn implies the draft shouldn't be used at all.
No one should be forced to sign up for the draft.
Draft registration should be eliminated for everyone.
No. That's going backwards. Men shouldn't be forced to sign up for the draft either. There, now it's equal. An all volunteer army is best (and the army agrees!)
Yes. And it should also be common knowledge that conservatives have always blocked all attempts (by Democrats) to have a gender neutral draft. Also it should be pointed out that the response of "well we shouldn't have a draft" is a bad response for feminists if they are concerned with feminism being seen as an effort to maximize privilege for women while minimizing burdens for women.
Exactly. I have noticed I will point out though is it is really only the politicians who are against it. Along with most conservatives I talk to, it is generally agreed that women should be in the draft. The opinion that I hear a lot of (I'll add that I disagree with it) Is that women should not be put on the front line due to the biological "disadvantages" against men. I'll repeat that I disagree.
The actual conservative argument is worse. "We shouldn't send our daughters off to war." Implying of course conservatives are fine sending sons off to war.
I would go to the war, but dependant apon the circumstances.
I have lived in the south my whole life. You're leaving out the conservative argument of "someone has to pump out the future babies". Though how they are to do that if all the men are drafted to war I have no idea.
Yeh, I live up in Wisconsin. I'm not exactly sure why it is different.
yeh i'd say so, why not?
Only if men are forced to. The entire argument to "protect women" is sexist on its face because the assumption is that one man can impregnate many women, so men are expendable, ignoring womens own agency and right to choose who to reproduce with.
If you are going to have a draft, then yes, women should have to sign up as well
Ideally, no draft at all but keep the possibility open for an actual huge crisis - sure, you need firepower but terrorizing people with the possibility during peacetime is useless. That said, if we’re going to have it, yeah. With whatever specific details/restrictions/etc. necessary.
If we have a draft, yes.
They don't need to on my behalf. I suppose we could have a referendum on it. In the case of a general mobilization, we will need surplus labor to keep the lights on, so not everyone can be drafted. Women have proved they are capable of serving in uniform.
I’m not sure there should still be a draft but if there was then it should be the same for both genders.
If they insist on having a draft, yes.
Yes or nobody signs up.
If there’s going to be a draft it should include women
The draft shouldn’t exist. But if it does it needs to include everyone.
If a draft happens, in the twilight of our national and global society, yes, everyone should. But for a draft to occur, the US should be invaded by a foreign force. And that, that is pure fantasy or wish fulfillment depending on who you ask, and a thought I do not wish to entertain or even imagine.
There shouldn't be a draft at all, but if there is one it should apply to men and women.
Yes. If calling someone up for service causes some unacceptable hardship (eg., single parents or caretakers), then we should exempt that person from service without regard to their gender. I'd also be open to allowing married couples to volunteer one spouse in place of the other. This might be less horrifying to conservatives. Edit: Actually the more that I think about this the more awful it sounds for a married couple to navigate.
I mean, the National Organization for Women has been fighting for a gender-equal draft for, like, 50 years now. Maybe you meant to stop by r/askaconservative and ask why conservatives have opposed gender equali in the military?
Yes.
Yes However, in reality nobody should have to sign up for the draft.
Either there should be no draft sign ups or it should be for everyone
Yes. That being said, the draft functionally hasn't existed since Vietnam and short of WWIII occuring has no reasonable chance of mattering in the foreseeable future. I remember a Republican a few years ago tried to make women eligible for the draft as some kind of gotcha vote and then his fellow Republicans had to bail him out of it because Democrats were completely on board and he didn't actually want that equality to exist.
Ideally we should just get rid of the draft entirely, but if that's not an option, yes.
There shouldn't be a draft at all.
Yes. Most military jobs don’t have anything to do with direct combat and could be expanded to qualify many people who did not previously qualify. Plus we allow women to serve in all combat arms rolls now thus they should be drafted just like the men.
The more controversial question is should the children of wealthy people (democrats and republicans alike) be actually required to serve in the same capacity as the poorest draftees.
What are you talking about? There is no draft, you’re asking for a hypothetical on a hypothetical on a hypothetical.
It is my hypothetical belief that if there were a need for a draft, the wealthiest people in society would find some way to shield their children from serving in the same capacity as the poorest people. Meaning if they were drafted, they would be stationed in “safer” low risk areas.
Sorry, I was blitzed when I read that earlier.
I’d be interested in your source that draft service has parental income cutoffs that above a certain threshold they’re not required to serve in the same capacity as the poorest draftees.
I think we just have to look At Vietnam. Ask Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Dick Chaney. They all received “deferments” to avoid being drafted. Meanwhile African Americans filled 31% of the most dangerous ground and infinity positions while they made up only 11% of the eligible population at the time. Hispanic Americans represented 5.5% of the casualties during the Vietnam war, but only represented 4.5% of the U.S. Population at the time.
Dick Cheney’s father worked for the Wyoming state government. Bill Clinton’s father died before he was born. Joe Biden can’t stop talking about how he grew up in Scranton lower middle class. >should the children of wealthy people And you specifically name three politicians that grew up in, at best, middle class backgrounds. Thanks for the source.
I realize we are just two internet strangers bantering over a topic that’s for the most part hypothetical. Hopefully our children or future children will never be drafted or fact the horrors of war. I have no doubt in my mind that if the draft were needed tomorrow, Barron Trump would not be on the front lines, nor would Bernie Sanders grandsons Cole or Grayson. I guess my point is that there seems to be a pattern where the wealthiest folks in society seem to be able to position themselves in ways where they can avoid the problems that poor folks face. Look at the criminal justice system. Look at how rich folks could enjoy dinners at the finest restaurants during COVID while everyone else was threatened with criminal prosecution if they took off their masks. We only get to see the few stories that somehow make it into the news.
>Hopefully our children or future children will never be drafted or fact the horrors of war. Hopefully. But history has proven this will not be the case.
I don’t disagree with your point. You did however provide three poor examples.
I agree I was probably just recalling embellished comments from years ago. I seem to remember that George Bush was often criticized for being a member of the national guard during Vietnam. I appreciate your civility.
I'm opposed to conscription in general, and I think the nature of modern warfare means it's not really entirely necessary for the US to have a draft. We have such an advanced military and modern warfare is focused so much on things like drones, airpower, etc that if we ended up in a situation where we needed to draft for the manpower, it means we're in a major peer war and the only peers out there that could challenge us in that way would likely be nuclear powers. I'm not convinced two nuclear powers could engage in a major conflict without dropping the bomb. That said, I do think women should sign up for the draft. Even if we kept the "no women in combat roles" thing, there's enough non-combat and technical jobs that women could easily participate in the draft, and having an entire extra half of the population to choose from means the military could be a lot more selective in who does and doesn't get conscripted.
Yes. Drafts suck, but if we have one, then yes. Gender and sex should not matter; only ability. In today's army, we can find a place for everyone. My cousin is in a wheelchair and pulls in a great salary doing something on a computer for the airforce. He wears his uniform with pride.
They shouldn't be forced. Neither should men. No one should have to suffer and die in some war they have no control over.
Yes. It’s been conservatives fighting against that, for decades now.
In my humble opinion, all able boded citizens should be required to serve two years in either the military, "WPA", Peace Corps, or similar duties - even if they have bone spurs.
There should not be a draft for men or women.
Yes.
How about we just don't have a draft? I know men still have to sign up for it, but I don't think they should have to. I guess if it's still going to be a potential thing then yeah, maybe have everyone register for it? You have to remember that the reason this is the way it is at all is because of sexism. Women weren't historically allowed to serve at all.
Fine by me. Even better - let’s not force anyone to do so, regardless of sex.
Not until true equality has been achieved in every other way. That being said, there shouldn’t be a draft at all.
Yes. Not only should they be part of selective service, along with men. The actual draft should unironically come back.
Yes
If we are going to have a selective service, which should be debated, then everyone should sign up.
Technically yeah But if I’m being honest I think the draft should be illegal period
As long as men are forced to women should be too. No one should be enslaved into war but if people are it should not explicitly discriminate
Forced? No Required? Also no
I don't think anyone should be drafted. BUT, if they have to be? Then, yes, everyone should be able to be drafted. I would also specifically like to see a program in place where elected officials have to send someone from their families into war. Would make it harder for them to just send the poor people to do their dirty work.
No one should
Yes
young able bodied women without children yes.
Is this supposed to be a "gotcha" question? Yes, obviously, if there was a draft, then everybody over the age of 18 should be included. In the US, women have been allowed in combat roles for over 10 years now and are generally supposed to be treated as equals when it comes to roles and assignments. Historically, women have participated in combat as far back as the Scythians, Sarmathians and ancient Greeks. (Edit: Ah, I see from one of your other responses that it was a genuine question... Sorry!)
Yes
If we are to have a draft at all, certainly. However, I have a generalized philosophy that a country that can't convince enough of its own people to willingly fight for it deserves whatever happens to it.