who is responsible for gender based selective service/conscription/draft?

Angryasfk · 2024-12-02T09:03:28+00:00

It’s gender specific because the military was seen as a male thing. So once Obama opened up all combat positions to women, they should have been compelled to register for selective service at the same time. Something tells me that support for “women in the military”, all this “GI Jane” stuff would have dropped rapidly.

Different-Product-91 · 2024-12-02T10:15:17+00:00

It's the same everywhere - in Europe, the draft was not deemed "forced labor" by the European Court of Justice, too. Men are denied the most basic rights, and miraculously it is never unconstitutional. One must be a jurist or a politician to understand the logic behind this.

Successful_Video_970 · 2024-12-02T20:29:29+00:00

Men around the world. Do not fight for your government’s. If they’re come to your door. Let them fill their prisons. Then when we’re all together. We take over. We don’t fight for Narcissistic leaders that fight other countries wars for religious reasons and cause Wars for greed.

RoryTate · 2024-12-02T14:25:28+00:00

That wikipedia article is highly misleading. Unfortunately, the site relies on news articles to form the narrative angle used by the text, due largely to the way it excludes primary sources (the "No original research" rule). As such, you would never know that the main relief being sought in "Rostker v. Goldberg" back in 1981 was to require women to sign up for Selective Service and be available for non-combat roles. The wikipedia article blindly regurgitates the "male superiority/men are perceived as stronger" and it's "all about engaging in combat" propaganda that every news article uses to misrepresent this case in the present day, which is done solely for crass political gain. Again, that is not what the 1981 case was even about.

Let's consider the actual text from the 1981 decision:

Although the military experts who testified in favor of registering women uniformly opposed the actual drafting of women, see, e.g., Hearing on S. 109 and S. 226, at 11 (Gen. Rogers), there was testimony that in the event of a draft of 650,000 the military could absorb some 80,000 female inductees. Hearings on S. 2294, at 1661, 1828. The 80,000 would be used to fill noncombat positions, freeing men to go to the front. In relying on this testimony in striking down the MSSA, the District Court palpably exceeded its authority when it ignored Congress' considered response to this line of reasoning.

In the first place, assuming that a small number of women could be drafted for noncombat roles, Congress simply did not consider it worth the added burdens of including women in draft and registration plans.

Wow, this easy solution of noncombat drafting simply wasn't worth the added burdens? Huh. Imagine that. You know, that's something I don't recall seeing anywhere else, in news articles or in the wikipedia article. Wow. I wonder why it's missing? How could this central part of the decision be ignored so completely everywhere in the media and the law? I mean, the court had a simple relief to make Selective Service equal and fair to both sexes over fours decades ago, but chose not to do so for reasons of...cost. Interesting that you never hear this core part of the case discussed or referenced anywhere these days.

"It has been suggested that all women be registered, but only a handful actually be inducted in an emergency. The Committee finds this a confused and ultimately unsatisfactory solution." S.Rep. No. 96-826, supra, at 158. As the Senate Committee recognized a year before, "training would be needlessly burdened by women recruits who could not be used in combat." S.Rep. No. 96-226, p. 9 (1979). See also S.Rep. No. 96-826, supra, at 159 ("Other administrative problems such as housing and different treatment with regard to dependency, hardship and physical standards would also exist"). It is not for this Court to dismiss such problems as insignificant in the context of military preparedness and the exigencies of a future mobilization.

Again, nothing but cost and effort. That's all this reasoning amounts to. They wouldn't make signing up for Selective Service apply equally, because it was "just too hard to do".

Congress also concluded that whatever the need for women for noncombat roles during mobilization, whether 80,000 or less, it could be met by volunteers. See id. at 160; id. at 158 ("Because of the combat restrictions, the need would be primarily for men, and women volunteers would fill the requirements for women"); House Hearings 19 (Rep. Holt). See also Hearings on S. 2294, at 1195 (Gen. Rogers).

Most significantly, Congress determined that staffing noncombat positions with women during a mobilization would be positively detrimental to the important goal of military flexibility.

". . . [T]here are other military reasons that preclude very large numbers of women from serving. Military flexibility requires that a commander be able to move units or ships quickly. Units or ships not located at the front or not previously scheduled for the front nevertheless must be able to move into action if necessary. In peace and war, significant rotation of personnel is necessary. We should not divide the military into two groups -- one in permanent combat and one in permanent support. Large numbers of non-combat positions must be available to which combat troops can return for duty before being redeployed."

Here is where combat is at last mentioned, but this is an "only men should be in danger of dying" assertion, not an "only men should be engaged in combat" argument, when you look closely at what is actually being said by both Congress and the SC. But it's beneficial for both sides of the political aisle to maintain the illusion that it's about "combat" in the end, so that's all this ever amounts to in mainstream discussions.

S.Rep. No. 96-826, supra, at 158. The point was repeated in specific findings, id. at 160; see also S.Rep. No. 9226, supra, at 9. In sum, Congress carefully evaluated the testimony that 80,000 women conscripts could be usefully employed in the event of a draft, and rejected it in the permissible exercise of its constitutional responsibility. See also Hearing on S. 109 and S. 226, at 16 (Gen. Rogers); [Footnote 17] Hearings on S. 2294 at 1682. The District Court was quite wrong in undertaking an independent evaluation of this evidence, rather than adopting an appropriately deferential examination of Congress' evaluation of that evidence.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it authorized the registration of men, and not women, under the Military Selective Service Act. The decision of the District Court holding otherwise is accordingly

Reversed.

Please note the multitude of arguments that are devoted solely to the question of changing Selective Service to be for noncombat roles only. Again, this limited availability was the primary relief requested by the complainants. But you wouldn't know it from all the rewriting of history done in this wikipedia article and everywhere else. Women actually fighting in combat is only mentioned once in this important section that forms the bulk of the reasoning for the reversal decision.

Fast forward to 2021. Elena Kagan, a feminist and left-appointed SC Justice, along with Sonia Sotomayor (another feminist and an appointment by the Dems) wrote separate opinions refusing the 2021 case, and therefore they are both directly responsible for denying the right to bodily sovereignty to men. That was the only reasonable chance to change the law in the US, and these two were the ones who blew it. Even worse, Kagan filled her opinion with the same divisive rhetoric about the case centering around "male superiority regarding combat ability", proving that here choice to strike down the case was nothing more than a crass political decision, to be used as election ammo by her allies. And sure enough, people try to blame the Republicans in Congress all the time for the continued failure to change the law, ignoring the feminist Justices on the Supreme Court that actually ruled against men when they had the best chance to fix this right, and ignoring the fact that Dems in Congress tie any (extremely minor) SS changes they do propose to huge defense spending bills as riders and then happily remove them (meaning they use them merely as negotiating tools) so that they can then try to blame the other side in future campaigning. Most men see through the façade though. Even if you're a diehard Dem supporter who doesn't accept that the left are man-hating to their core, at best they are negligent, naïve, and incompetent when it comes to men's issues, so it amounts to the same thing in the end.

Having to choose between incompetent and man-hating on the left vs competent and elitist on the right, it's a terrible choice to be forced to make, but one is clearly the lesser of two evils at the moment from where I stand.

SidewaysGiraffe · 2024-12-02T11:42:27+00:00

"Hanging your toilet paper roll the correct way" is "preferred"; abolishing government battle slavery is "legally required". But that gets ignored for the sake of political convenience and saber-rattling, ultimately because no politician is willing to make a stand against it, and so no one is able to muster opposition in the zeitgeist, since there's no way to vote "against" it for the general population.

Interestingly, California had a plebiscite to "abolish involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime" in the last election, which would've taken down the OTHER form of legal slavery; it failed 45-55%. I'm rather curious as to WHY it failed, but given that it was a public vote, it doesn't really matter- and shows just how unlikely it is that public acceptance of battle thralldom will ever change.

hendrixski · 2024-12-02T13:11:45+00:00

The rich. They wrote conscription laws in ways that money allows their sons to pay out of conscription.

The rich are responsible.

Perfect_Sir4820 · 2024-12-02T13:19:56+00:00

"Who is responsible..."

Biology mainly. The issue with the draft isn't that it's male only but that women are granted equal rights without equal contribution. A fair society would either have everyone eligible for conscription, or grant some social benefit to those that are.

flashliberty5467 · 2024-12-02T16:19:38+00:00

When democrats proposed including the women into the draft right wing groups were upset at the proposal and were running ads saying democrats want to draft our daughters

By and large right wing groups are strongly opposed to expanding the draft to include women

Anyways it’s not fair to require men to be drafted but not women

I am all in favor of abolishing the draft

Joe_Hillbilly_816 · 2024-12-02T20:31:01+00:00

Only way to stop wars

ApprehensiveMail8 · 2024-12-02T23:35:02+00:00

Hugh "Iron Pants" Johnson.

Excellent_You5494 · 2024-12-02T19:46:00+00:00

Conscription has been around forever.

funnybillypro · 2024-12-02T15:26:30+00:00

Men? It looks like....men are responsible for this? Just checking.

Get this thing overturned! Maybe with four women on the court, it'll go differently...

Capable-Mushroom99 · 2024-12-02T08:21:52+00:00

There is no draft/ conscription it hasn’t been legal since 1973. Selective service also expired in 1973 but was revived by Jimmy Carter in 1980 by presidential order; I would think that it can similarly be ended by presidential order.

Title	who is responsible for gender based selective service/conscription/draft?
Author	Main-Tiger8593
Upvotes	139
Comments	65
Date	December 2, 2024 8:17 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1h4qa8w/who_is_responsible_for_gender_based_selective/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/who-is-responsible-for-gender-based-selective.1537357 https://theredarchive.com/post/1537357

Comments