Is Conscription a valid argument regarding discrimination against men?

TibsKirk · 2018-11-28T03:53:29+00:00

It's a huge historical issue surrounding the societal treatment of men vs. women. As much as people can support voluntary military service of women and equal opportunity, no one wants women today to be treated as men were treated in the past.

It is relevant to me because it is very hard to reconcile the myth of male power with the powerlessness of millions of men who died during the 20th century, most often due to military conscription. It's like a very first question for advocates of patriarchy theory, in which men built a society by men for men at the expense of women. "So then, why did society treat men like disposable human cannon fodder during times of war, while protecting women?" "Well, women were considered too weak!" is often the response. Still it strikes me as bizarre that somebody can think both that a. men are the privileged sex, and b. have any real understanding of how society treats men during times of war while protecting women.

It is another example of many feminists just not even considering history from a male point of view. Or, similarly, they may get worked up over the distress of a 1950s bored housewife who didn't feel fulfilled, while not even taking a moment to think about the men who became slaves to jobs and distant fathers. Those men even get blamed for "never being around" or "focusing too much on work" when they were expected to be sole providers. Neither the men nor the boy soldiers had the luxury of asking certain questions that women first had the luxury of asking, such as, "Are these gender expectations and demands good for me?" There would be about a 100 year gap between women and men asking that question. Meanwhile, generations of men were dying. Or they were working themselves to death to protect and provide, because that was expected. Women rebelled against the expectations, while many men didn't even question the consequences, which could end in the loss of everything, especially family (if the woman became unhappy).

Leinadro · 2018-11-28T03:51:48+00:00

I think a more specific focus should be put on Selective Service.

As it stand now only males have to register for it and there are penalties for not doing so.

When you say "draft" people will go out of the way to conclude you are talking about Vietnam or Korean War era drafting and will promptly end the conversation before it begins with "But the draft isnt active anymore".

Instead inform them on the punishments males face for not registering for Selective Service. You can get the regostration card at your local post office for free. It lists the requirements and the penalties.

mikesteane · 2018-11-28T04:38:59+00:00

Not considering something wrong for too long a time creates the illusion that it is right.

AndesiteSkies · 2018-11-28T11:13:48+00:00

There was someone on askreddit a while back who spoke of Finnish national service, from which women are exempt (but can volunteer to, though few do).

His opposition to national service centred on the time he was required by law to spend not furthering his education or career prospects.

Civilian service (as an alternative to military service) is set at 12 months. As opposed to military service which can half that.

So if a person has moral qualms about military service (hardly controversial), they are looking at losing a full year of their life, a career disadvantage that their female peers need not contend with.

So yes, conscription where is affects men disproportionately is absolutely a valid case of discrimination against men.

grasshopa · 2018-11-28T03:46:30+00:00

It's debated from time to time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the consensus is that it's bullshit, particularly in an age when women can hold any military position a man can.

Frankly, I think conscription is bullshit regardless; if you can't scrounge up enough people to fight your wars for you, then maybe you shouldn't be picking those fights, eh?

antifeminist3 · 2018-11-28T04:27:45+00:00

Feminists say "women should not be oppressed/suffer discrimination based on their biology of being a woman"

Using the same argument, men shouldn't be either. If feminists really believed there are not differences between men and women (some even deny strength differences), then women should be drafted too. Or, if they do acknowledge strength superiority of men, then men should received something in exchange for this legalized form of forced labor.

I call it the last culturally acceptable form of modern day version of slavery.

Hadashi_blacksky · 2018-11-28T16:31:12+00:00

Huh? We talk about this all the time.

HCEandALP4ever · 2018-11-28T21:40:25+00:00

I posted this elsewhere, but it seems relevant here too:

I've found that when arguing with feminists about the unfairness of the draft (registering for Selective Service), it's a problem if I only mention men having to buy our vote by agreeing to fight in wars. That usually gets one of several responses:

"Come on, when was the last draft? It's a meaningless thing you have to sign." or "But women have never been allowed to fight, so really, this is misogyny, not misandry." or "Who made that law? Men." or "There shouldn't be a draft anyway, and feminism is fighting against it."

Of course, we have counterarguments to all of these. But we limit ourselves by focusing only on them, because the argument then follows a familiar script. However, there are many other consequences we usually don't mention. It's much more effective to talk about them as well. These are real injustices. Unlike a hypothetical war, they are immediate and inescapable. Moreover, most feminists don't know about them. For instance, if you are male and you don't register, here's what you give up:

Eligibility for federal student financial aid
Loans or grant program (including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study)
State-funded student financial aid in many states
Most federal employment, including jobs in the U.S. Postal Service.
Some state employment
Security clearance for contractors
Job training programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
U.S. citizenship for immigrant men under 26 years old

These are all at the federal level. Some states have added additional penalties.

Oh, yes, and if you don't register, you have committed a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or up to five years in prison, or a combination of both.

Source: https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties

ImaPBSkid · 2018-11-29T16:30:19+00:00

I think it's important to understand how close, as a legal matter, the US is to a sex-neutral draft: far closer than most people realize.

The important ruling here is Rostker v. Goldberg, a 1981 supreme court decision on the question of whether or not requiring only 1 sex (males) to register with the Selective Service system was constitutional. The court held that, because the purpose of the draft was to call up a corps of combat troops in wartime, and females were not suitable for combat roles, a sex-descriminitory draft (and SS system, by extension) was constitutional.

All that's needed to change this, is for the military to decide that females are suitable for combat roles, which is exactly what feminists have been screaming for decades. Practically, this would likely take the form of an executive order (from the president), likely with supporting statements from the military branch chiefs.

Once you do this, there's really no legal way back. Rostker was a 6-3 decision, with no concurring opinion. The majority based its ruling entirely on females' unsuitability for combat, and the other 3 judges thought the sex-descrimination was unconstitutional. Imagine trying to relitigate this: what could your precident/argument possibly be?

There also seems to be some confusion about how many women would actually be affected by this. Obviously, all women would have to register with SS, but, in the event of a draft, more women than men would be conscripted. People seem to think that physical requirements in the military depend on your MOS (job). This is not the case. A 27D (paralegal specialist) has the exact same physical requirements as a 19D (calvary scout).

The physical requirements for men and women are different, yes, but their relative levels are set to pass (or fail) the same proportion of their respective sexes. That is, the same proportion of potential male draftees meet the male physical requirements as do potential female draftees meet the female physical requirements. As there are more women than men generally, and more men than women are in the armed forces already, a draft instituted under such conditions would affect more women than men.

Church556 · 2018-11-28T03:45:26+00:00

Workplace deaths, we face harsher sentences for the same charges...

HIJKelemenoP · 2018-11-28T03:42:06+00:00

What's conscription?

geniice · 2018-11-28T05:06:50+00:00

Conscription hasn't existed since 1963. Pushing the defintion of "contemporary" a bit there.

Title	Is Conscription a valid argument regarding discrimination against men?
Author	2suur
Upvotes	8
Comments	37
Date	November 28, 2018 3:39 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/a12f5t/is_conscription_a_valid_argument_regarding/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-conscription-a-valid-argument-regarding.889286 https://theredarchive.com/post/889286

Comments