Well, to put it plainly, I don't support the draft at all, for men or women. That's why I'm not clamoring for women to be included in it.

I'm with magadalune. I don't think there should be a draft at all. I understand why there is one and I don't think it'll go away any time soon and if we must have a draft, it should be equal.

I also think that women should be on the front lines if they want to be, but I sort of understand the reasoning why they aren't. I get that people still consider the death of a woman to be either the failing of a man to protect her (fellow male soldier) or her fault for putting herself there (and why didn't some man protect her from it?). Morale and interpretation are really important in troops, but I just don't see why we can't work on that issue. Why can't we treat the death of men and women in battle like equals? Did they not both fight and die? Is there some sort of inherent difference in the value of the sexes that won't allow for equal grieving? I've had military types explain this to me like I'm four, but I don't see why we can't work on changing how people think (maybe in peacetime?) so that things are more fair.

The reason I think many feminists are silent on the draft issue is partially because there is no active draft. No men's numbers are being called up to go to war. While Marlon is right in that there is a technical "draft" for men, it's not operational. Most men's lives will not be affected by the draft in this war, because we aren't using the draft to get soldiers.

But good on him for writing in and expressing his viewpoints! That's really great to hear and see and I think that he was really respectful. That fosters good discussion, so I'm pretty peachy right now :D

I don't think there should be a draft AT ALL. I don't think feminists should campaign to have women included in the draft, to be perfectly honest I think most of them really, really don't want to be, but to get men out of the draft. People shouldn't be drafted, so we're naturally not going to try and get Women drafted when the better goal is to keep ANYONE from getting drafted.

I mean, abolitionists weren't out trying to get white people made slaves too to make it equal. They were trying to get rid of the whole system. IMO, that's the best goal. No one should be drafted. I'm a girl; I don't want to get drafted and I don't care if it'd be more "fair" if I did. I also don't want to see any of the guys I know get drafted. The unfairness isn't that men can get drafted but women can't; the unfairness is that ANYONE, male or female, can get drafted.

this tired old meme...

I am so sick of hearing this. Its the same line that is trotted out when someone wants to be mad at feminism for not doing enough. We have only barely managed to get what we have for women, but we are failures because we didn't do something strictly for men. If you don't want your son to be drafted then start an activist campaign against the damn draft. Why do the women have to drop what they are doing to do something that is strictly for men in order to be seen as legitimate by some?

Feminism and feminists are generally anti-war so we arent going to be clamoring for drafts for anyone any time soon.

That and havent drafting laws changed to include women? yes, we dont have to sign up for selective service, but that doesnt mean that in the case of a draft that we arent vulnerable to it.

if you dont like something then work to fix it instead of expecting other activists to hand it to you.

I guess Marlon is say is IF there is a draft, SHOULD women be drafted to as a matter of equality.

To answer the question in another way is not fair to the question asker.

Steven,
the OP pointed out the anti-war stance of feminism and of feminist movement. It logically follows that we are against the draft PERIOD, full stop, regardless of the gender of the draftees, and yet the OP suggests that this is somehow incompatible with a stance of equality that is anti war and pro individual rights.

the question asker is not being consistent enough in his logic for a specific question to be clear beyond the usual "Feminists don't do anything for MEN!!!" whining.

Ok, if there were war-mongering feminists... what would their answer be?

that women should be given the same opportunity to serve their country involuntarily that men are.

however, "war mongering feminists" most likely wouldn't happen, since the very concept of a draft is directly in opposition to a basic feminist tenet of individual rights and freedom. I am speaking theoretically of course, since I'm also fairly sure that there are those who call themselves feminist who haven't yet realized that drafting people is one of many antitheses to the concept that people have the right to do with their own bodies and lives as they see fit.

Well, this is my first post to feministing, and I posed my question in an "ask a feminist" kind of way. I am responding primarily to jenianne because she sent me packing to define "meme," and seems passionate. I am glad to know the word "meme" now, and I suppose it is accurately applied to my query -that is: "We have only barely managed to get what we have for women, but we are failures because we didn't do something strictly for men." and "Why do the women have to drop what they are doing to do something that is strictly for men in order to be seen as legitimate by some?" -offered
by jenianne.
Personally, I have been an anti-war activist (and a feminist) since 1975 -end of Vietnam war. My tour ended in 1977. I frequently counsel young people , including my son, and many of his friends, about the realities of serving.
julianne suggested: "if you dont like something then work to fix it instead of expecting other activists to hand it to you."
...so that doesn't really apply here; and this query is part of my work to "fix it." As a feminist, I am pointing out an inconsistency -a sexist "double standard." -and I have a son and a daughter.
My original query was to Jessica Valenti, and referenced her book: "He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know" ...so I hope folks will frame this query with that idea in mind. I am not challenging the "validity of the feminist movement" here, I am just gathering information relevant to this topic.

jeniann:"That and havent drafting laws changed to include women? yes, we dont have to sign up for selective service, but that doesnt mean that in the case of a draft that we arent vulnerable to it." well, um...yes it does. My specific gripe, however, is ABOUT the Selective Service Registration currently for men(only). If men do not sign up to be drafted, they are punished selectively, by gender. Aren't we against that? This is a LAW that is unfairly applied,by gender and (therefore) is unconstitutional.
Dori offered: "I guess Marlon is saying is IF there is a draft, SHOULD women be drafted to as a matter of equality." No dori, that is not my focus -though Rep. Charlie Rangel's legislation on starting up a draft for everybody seems to be more fair and equable than drafting just men -and is a good "anti-war" angle. There are National Service options... but it seems like a slippery slope, and i am not sure I support forced National Service of any kind.
As I consider my point, if we had this legislation, I suppose men and women would have to register, and would be subject to the same laws, if they did not -and we would not have the current inequality/double standard/gender persecution.
BUT, I cannot support a draft...and round and round it goes...
Anyway...thanks, Marlon

Dori commented at July 18, 2008 9:01 PM: "That and havent drafting laws changed to include women? yes, we dont have to sign up for selective service, but that doesnt mean that in the case of a draft that we arent vulnerable to it."

I'm not sure about the U.S., but I heard that in some of the countries in which most men get conscripted for a year or two or three women get conscripted too (Israel, China, etc.).

austinmarlon

As far as doing feminist work, i try to resolve that double standard (which is based in benign sexism against women, by the way) by fighting to eliminate the draft and selective service registration altogether because it does not fit with the feminist belief that everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their bodies and lives.

so we ARE against it.

I thought your followup comment sounded a lot less accusatory than your original post, so I will respond now. No offense, I hope- text can be a difficult means of communication.

Marlon said:
"My specific gripe, however, is ABOUT the Selective Service Registration currently for men(only). If men do not sign up to be drafted, they are punished selectively, by gender. Aren't we against that? This is a LAW that is unfairly applied,by gender and (therefore) is unconstitutional."

I think that is a very good point. I, like the others above, do not believe there should be a draft for anyone, therefore I am not going to spend a lot of my already short amount of free-time advocating that it be more inclusive. I would rather exercise my activism trying to solve world issues without war. I also personally think it's ridiculous that we make young men register for a draft that doesn't even exist, but that, too, is a different issue.

I think the real issue we should focus on was articulated perfectly in the passage I quoted from you. The fact that THE MILITARY IS ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER, which is a right that other employers in the US cannot constitutionally do. This is totally and completely ridiculous, and affects more issues than just the gender inequity of the selective service registration.

Women, regardless of their individual qualifications and abilities, currently cannot fight in front-line combat. That specific thing is actually something I have heard quite a lot about from many feminists, including the women who run this site, as well as many commenters.

Now, please understand that lack of attention to the male-only draft registration by feminists is not because we do not care; for many women, perhaps especially for those of us who are anti-war, the fact that our fathers, our brothers, and for heterosexual women, their significant others have to register for the draft is a scary thing, even if we do not currently and maybe are not likely to have a draft called into effect. Many of us DO care about that.

However, that is not necessarily a direct influence on our lives. What tends to affect women more in this situation is the inequity in hiring practices present in the military, which sometimes put women soldiers at increased risk, keeps the most capable soldiers from fighting in positions they are qualified to fight in, which potentially endangers men and women alike, and other issues of gender discrimination within the military such as sexual harassment and assault that are so prevalent and poorly dealt with.

I guess what I am saying [and I apologize for writing a novel here], is that we can find common ground in holding the military responsible for equitable hiring and workplace conditions that other employers are bound to. The fact that the military gets a magic exemption to discriminate based by gender, regardless of whether it primarily affects women or affects men, is WRONG.

Many feminists can and do work to fix that, and the issue of the draft is a smaller component of that fight, if that makes sense.

Er well. This may make me unpopular, but I believe that a draft may be necessary at times to ensure defense of the country. Ideally it would never happen, but I do think that, for instance, the draft in WWII was justified. Vietnam, not so much. Nevertheless, I think the mechanism should exist, though its use should be restricted to, say, an ACTUAL declaration of war by Congress as opposed to continual re-authorization of military force by good old Commander in Chief Bush.
That said, if we have a draft, then yes, it ought to include women. Part of equality is taking the good with the bad. If we want to benefit as full members of society with equal value, then we have to shoulder its responsibilities as well.

I agree with you, have.at.it. If there was a draft for a war, women should not be exempt. Women should be required to register with Selective Service or face penalties too. I also think conscientious objector status, or alternatives to actually fighting, should be more readily available - again, for both men and women.

"Er well. This may make me unpopular, but I believe that a draft may be necessary at times to ensure defense of the country. Ideally it would never happen, but I do think that, for instance, the draft in WWII was justified. Vietnam, not so much."

have.at.it:

I am going to steal a quote used in COD IV to help me get my point across:

"If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merits of our
cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-Robert McNamara

I would say that if you cannot get people to enlist for the war, your war does not have popular support and you really shouldn't be drafting people or in the freaking war.

I think the fact that the draft is there makes the process of going to war easier, because it makes escalating the war easier, if you have to.

-Steven

Thanks ALL!
To clarify my positions, and responses received:
1. Requiring men and women to perform national service is acceptable if alternatives to military service are offered.
OR
If there is a draft, men AND women should be drafted.

2. From a feminist perspective, it is wrong, unethical, and unconstitutional to require men, and not women, to register with selective services for the draft.
AND/OR
3. ANY Draft is an infringement on individual liberties, and the feminist position is that DRAFTING ANYONE is wrong and should be opposed.

LlesbianLlama commented at July 19, 2008 1:05 PM: "Women, regardless of their individual qualifications and abilities, currently cannot fight in front-line combat. That specific thing is actually something I have heard quite a lot about from many feminists, including the women who run this site, as well as many commenters."

I heard that women in the U.S. military can fight in front-line combat, they just can't have front-line combat job titles. There's an interesting analysis in "State Of The Union: Women in combat" by Robert Hodierne
in Arlington, Virginia, BBC, 6 September, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3630902.stm

Mina,

Thanks for the article, it was really interesting! From what I understand in the article, they are not *supposed* to be fighting in front-line combat as soldiers, but instead play support roles and end up there anyways. Even then, I am pretty sure that they are not supposed to be deployed to these positions unless there are no available men to take them.

I am not an expert on the military or women in the military by any means, but I know that there is a lot of gender inequity in the military, and that that sort of discrimination would not be legal were it being exercised by an employer who was not exempt from US constitutional law.

From the article:

"Except women cannot be in the infantry, they cannot drive tanks, they cannot be in special forces or other elite combat units.

Women are segregated into so-called support jobs, where the adventure, if it comes - like it did for Jessica Lynch - comes by accident. "

I think that illustrates my point pretty well.

In regards to the military, women cannot have an infanty designation, (thereby excluding any special forces), nor may they be in artillery.

There are many Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) that women can serve in and still hit the front lines. Military Police provide convoy security, Logistical MOS's diliver the goods, and they drive. Women can fly fixed and rotary wing. They can be medics, but usually they are assigned to rear echelon position, but in a pinch are used as combat medics (there was an article here or Feministe about a female medic who earned a silver star or some other distinction).

I think the arguement that women encounter combat completly by accident is a little off. Women fly A-10 Thunderbolts, Blackhawks, Apaches and Cobras. Quite frankly, those things can fuck some shit up.

Thanks for the clarification, Steven. :)

However, their exclusion from the special forces and artillery simply based on gender and with no exemption for ability would be unconstitutional if it were practiced by an employer subject to regular US law.

I apologize for getting some of the more logistical stuff wrong, but my point still very much stands, and I think it is important to focus on gender discrimination as the primary target for feminism: saying that feminists do not address gender discrimination practices in drafting policies avoids the reality that feminists combat military gender discrimination in other ways. The end result is the same, with pressure on the military to change its discriminatory practices based on gender, regardless of which gender is primarily affected.

Steven commented at July 20, 2008 3:53 PM: "I think the arguement that women encounter combat completly by accident is a little off. Women fly A-10 Thunderbolts, Blackhawks, Apaches and Cobras. Quite frankly, those things can fuck some shit up."

Yeah, a little off especially since later in the article Hodierne does acknowledge women having combat job titles in the U.S. Air Force.

Meanwhile, has anyone else here read the history book Women of Valor: The Rochambelles on the WWII Front by Ellen Hampton?

As a daughter from a family with a (maternal) military history, I have known all of my life that woman are just as able as men. My mom was in the army, her mom was in the army, and HER mom was-from what I have heard-an army secretary during WW2. I don't think anyone should be drafted, but if there is a draft I do think that women shouldn't be exempt. I might be wrong, but isn't that what they're doing in Israel?

Thanks All, but for the most part, my questions are not answered by the "Of course the draft is wrong, and I am against it" folks, nor was it answered by the "gender discrimination in the armed services is the main thing we need to focus on" or the "why can't women be in Special Forces if they are physically qualified?" folks.

I do not think my position is representative of the "tired meme that feminists do not do enough for 'men'" nor the "tired meme that because 'feminists' have not addressed ______ -that 'the movement' is a failure."
My query is not "philosophical" or "hypothetical." I AM suggesting that my son has to put his name on the Selective Service roll next year, and if he doesn't, then he will go to jail -in the worst case scenario, or will be punished in a variety of ways, including exclusion from student loans.
I also suggest that "10 out of 10" feminists don't think it is important, because "we don't have a draft, now -and we are against the draft anyway"
...and that Ms. Feminist Icon is a double standard...

...so what does one do with that? ...besides, "fight the power."
Thanks, Marlon