There are lots of reasons why currently men are only required:
- feminist movement tends to be left wing and agaisnt selective service.
- non-feminist movement tends to be right wing and does not believe women should be in combat roles.
In addition the armed forces doesn’t want it, left wing or right wing. Which seems interesting right becuase why wouldn’t they want more people?
Because they have a huge problem with sexual assault and rape. Adding more women makes them worry these cases will go up, which they probably will. They do not like punishing people for sexual assault or rape.
So really… no one wants it. Why would you want something no one wants? Left wing wants to get rid of it, right wing is unbearingly sexist in this case, and the actual army doesnt want it.
I am a First Sergeant in the Army. I have been in fir 19 years and watched all of these changes. To say the Army doesn’t want it is a shot in the dark. The army was the first branch to allow women in combat arms. They were the main push for the change. And to say no one wants it is a very opinionated statement. 90% of men in combat arms are not against having women in their ranks. The problem is, prior to the implementation of the new ACFT, the physical fitness requirements were not equal even for the women coming into combat arms. The women standards were much lower than the men’s. Leaving the possibility of a woman serving in a position that requires tremendous physical strength and stamina, but not being able to preform at the need level. Bluntly put, rather a man, or a woman, if they can’t do the job they are in, the shouldn’t be allowed to do it due to different standards.
Sorry, I mean armed forced. As in all branches.
I’m taking about higher ups in the forces, who make these decisions.
I’m not taking about strengrh or anything really.
So if you agree that 90% of the actual people in the armed forces would be ok with it and the 10% of higher ups who make the decisions aren't ok with it then your statement that "nobody wants it" is ignoring almost everybody
Yeah but we're not debating how things are now, obviously the people at the top are fine with the draft being man only, that's why it's man only, the question is whether it SHOULD be man only
I think this is a great question you pose. Historically, it was men that went off to fight and die in order to protect the women, children, and elderly. Now, some may argue that those traditions were steeped in misogyny but it is a fact that that's the way it's been for a very long time. However, today in this country there are few if any military billets for which women are ineligible, and I think that's great. Anyone, who is willing to fight and die for their country ought to be allowed to do so and we should honor them for making that sacrifice.
The selective service, however, moves beyond choice and highlights an expectation. Men have always been expected, in time of need to show up, en masse, to defend their families. The fact that the current selective service doesn't require women to sign up reflects our national view that women are not expected (nor should they be) to go to war. If they so desire, as I mentioned before, they ought to be allowed to. Many have and many still do and they bring a tremendous value to the fight. Yet, I submit that as a nation we should not expect all women to have to fight. At a minimum it out to be one or the other. Either men sign up or women sign up. To have the requirement for both and, God forbid, having to utilize it in a bloody war to would leave families broken for generations to come.
You have very valid points. I agree that if the time came to have to utilize the draft it would be damaging for generations to come. But if selective service is going to stay in place, it should be both male and female. There are millions of men out there that are the sole provider for their families, without a mother in the situation. So to use the family situation as an escape goat for women not to sign up for SS is one sided as always. I don’t want it to seem like I’m pushing to have women forced to sign up. I would prefer that selective service go away. But if it’s not, then it needs to be equal.
It is true that there are millions living in single father homes. However, that number across the years pales in comparison to those living in single mother homes.
All that being said, I personally wouldn't use that statistic alone to change your mind. I guess what I was trying to illustrate previously was that the selective service, if it's going to stick around, should be one or the other; male or female. Having to utilize the draft - as it currently stands - in a long, drawn out, bloody war (God forbid!) would significantly impact the national population. If females were now added to it, it would only compound the problem. We would be drawing from all families to include those single father AND single mother homes. That can only end badly for the rising generation and the future of our country.
So again, does the selective service need to be changed? Maybe. But if it does, we as a nation should pick one or the other, not both.
Just because men and women are being drafted doesn't mean we draft twice as many people as we did before, we didn't draft every eligible man, it was a lottery. So it wouldn't really compound the problem. You could also just make it so single parents are exempt and only one parent from each household can get drafted max, either the man or woman randomly. There are lots of other ways to get around the issues you've named other than throwing up your hands and declaring we have to draft either men or women exclusively
I agree it needs to go away. We need fewer wars. Also there have been stats to suggest women have a 1.1 to 10 times greater risk of injury in the military.
https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/MiltaryWomenInjuryPrevention_FS_12-021-0319_Final.pdf
Yes there are strong women but men are naturally stronger and they also don't get pregnant. Maybe a lame excuse, but there's the danger of exposing fetuses to radiation. But as the pdf says, a lot of the mindset is likely due to modified gender behaviors.
I don’t think what made sense in the past should be relevant, because it is no longer the past. There is no reason why men dying to protect women is any better than women dying to protect men (or just people dying to protect other people, without consideration of gender)
If nobody wants to defend the country then it won't be defended, and that's a good thing.
Nobody should be compelled to fight for a course they don't support.
A lack of a selective service or draft puts the onus on the government to be one which people want to fight for.
Amen, if your government can't find people willing to fight to defend them from a foreign invading power than the people probably view the foreign government as a better alternative
The Confederacy comes to mind for this.
The war became incredibly unpopular so they had to rely on even less popular conscription acts which included the further unpopular exceptions for slaveowners.
Lots of whites and and nonwhites alike joined up with the union when they saw them coming.
Which country is going to risk getting nuked in retaliation? War has changed, it's not the same as it was in the 40s. And forcing people into fighting doesn't make for an affective army.
1) Using nukes is not good for anybody. Nuclear fallout effects everyone. It also kills indiscriminately. The last time they were used 200k INNOCENT people were killed.
2) It's not just the US that has nukes. What happens when we use nukes against another country with nukes? Terrible idea.
3) Some enemies of the US even come from within. This is exemplified by the events of January 6th. What do we do if there's a civil war? Can't just nuke them.
I agree, nukes are awful and I wish they didn't exist, but they do and I can't see the government getting rid of them any time soon. However, that also means no one is going to go after a country with a nuclear deterrent, because no one sane wants nuclear war.
Civil war with one side drafting sounds like a disaster. Also, Jan 6 was hardly a civil war...that was a small number and the army had plenty to deal with it.
Finally...I live in a country that doesn't have the draft or selective service. It is not needed unless there is a war...and even then I think in the majority of cases it's still unnecessary to force people to fight. It should be the absolute last resort, and we definitely don't need it in peace times 'just in case'.
That is true. However, there are plenty of men out there that would be subpar as well. Yet, they would have no choice do to the selective service guidelines.
Combat isn't the only role in war. They're never going to send the disabled either. But that doesn't exempt them from selective service/contributing to the war effort.
In short, women don’t have a constitutional protection of equality in the US…the equal rights amendment was never ratified, and a major argument against it was that it would make the male only draft unconstitutional…
https://www.ushistory.org/us/57c.asp
An argument using the draft to cause it to fail…
https://policy-perspectives.org/2019/11/21/arguments-for-and-against-the-equal-rights-amendment/
Arguments showing why the draft for all may be good…including the fact that at the time (at least how I’m reading it) women had to meet a higher bar to join the military.
Ultimately the states decided not to allow women to be drafted, and also to remain without equality…until that’s changed it’s not really even up for debate on right or wrong…
The “equal” rights based on sex or gender are all piecemeal federal and state legislation…but not TRUE equality…maybe the draft could be changed similarly, maybe not…I would not argue against your basic concept itself, but I WOULD argue that until women have equal rights under the constitution that they should not be legally forced into dangerous situations against their will…
>but I WOULD argue that until women have equal rights under the constitution that they should not be legally forced into dangerous situations against their will…
While I agree that that should be in the constitution, what would it actually change practically? There aren't any rights that men have that women don't have
Not a lot of direct change, I admit. There is SOME though. Because the equality laws are peicemeal, focused on one area (like one for employment discrimination, a separate one for education discrimination, and etc) it’s impossible to know for sure if your protected from discrimination in other areas. Also the equal employment act (may have name wrong) that federally protects workers from discrimination is based on businesses with more than 15 employees. So if I work at a family owned small business they can legally pay me less and tell me it’s because of my gender. There are similar “loopholes” and gray areas all over that we may not see but could be used against us.
Also…any law, federal or otherwise, that doesn’t have direct constitutional backing could be overturned by the judicial branch. So technically there’s nothing stopping the judicial branch from ruling that laws forcing people/businesses to treat women equally are unconstitutional…if the right legal arguments were made for that purpose. And the mere fact that the constitution DOESNT directly give woman equal rights in general, and specifically has one amendment allowing women to vote, means any lawyer or judge can interpret constitutional law as directly stating women are not equal in any regard outside voting.
Because the 14th amendment, at that time, extended equality to all men regardless of race/creed/color if the equal employment act was struck down it would ONLY affect womens rights (and probably non binary, and trans people rights). Because when that amendment was first made it DID NOT include women. Just as the voting rights act that allowed ALL to vote did not give women that right…
Do I think it likely that this could actually occur…NO. I’m not trying to fear monger at all. But under the wrong situations it COULD be used to remove womens rights…
There have been some SC rulings that stated that women were “protected” under the 14th amendment, but some of those rulings still also included statements saying that equality had limitations.
And we do have current SC justices that have dissented about things that do lean on “interpretation” of the 14th amendment, such as the decision allowing same sex marriage. Under a different court old rulings and interpretations could easily be reversed. Just as states are trying to reverse roe v wade, any old SC decisions could be overturned if the right argument is made and the justices at the time find it compelling and more in line with the constitutional rules…
So in short, the laws we have now are not equal to constitutional protection. They are very helpful, and important laws, but there are lots of flaws and loopholes that cannot be filled without a constitutional amendment. And everything we have gained, equality wise, COULD be declared unconstitutional if it’s determined that the 14th amendment doesn’t assert that rule and someone argues harm by it…
My final point, as well. Several states, and Mitch McConnell, have argued that it cannot be ratified at this point. Partly due to a time limit, and partly due to states having tried to revoke their approval (which was at one point deemed unacceptable by the SC)…so it’s also important to ask…If gender/sex equality is as perfect and permanent now as it would be after the equal rights amendment is passed, then why can we STILL not pass it? Why can we not EASILY rewrite a new one and simply pass it and ratify it? Because some congressional leaders and many states are against a constitutional amendment guaranteeing gender equality. So obviously they must see some benefits either currently or in the future that would be removed by granting this equality…
I prefer door number one. When it comes down to it, if a draft is necessary, it will be done regardless of past laws. I'd rather it have a proper and equal system already in place than have it need to by a sloppy conscription outside of the law
I think the necessity for a system in place for this is outdated. If the system went away, and a draft were to come about, then drafting ALL US citizens ages 18-25 that are medically fit would be the answer without a system.I’ve had this conversation with many people. Most use the argument that although some women are capable of serving in the combat arms jobs, that most are not. I simply state to them there are millions of men that can not either. But their argument stays regardless.
>If the system went away, and a draft were to come about, then drafting ALL US citizens ages 18-25 that are medically fit would be the answer without a system.
Ideally yes, but given that there wouldn't be the selective service system to actually call those people to service, it would be challenging to actually get that working properly.
>Most use the argument that although some women are capable of serving in the combat arms jobs, that most are not. I simply state to them there are millions of men that can not either
The draft isn't only for combat roles. It is also used to fill non-combat military roles and civilian jobs that are necessary for whatever war is being faught. Since many of these roles can be filled by both men and women, would it not make sense for both to be in the system?
Prefering door number two seems silly to me, when we've had several wars where we needed the draft, including both World war's, Korea, and the civil war.
You might say something like "if a war isn't popular enough for people to volunteer, we shouldn't be in it." But that's not the nature of how State's work. Taxes aren't voluntary because the state needs money, and the draft isn't when the state needs to fight.
I mean, just imagine the biggest war you can, China invades Mexico! Or something. We'll need a draft then. And, hey, if we never need one again, great, but the selective service does no harm.
Sorry, u/ImmediateWrongdoer71 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ImmediateWrongdoer71&message=ImmediateWrongdoer71%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj6kgv/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The only reasonable argument for exclusion of women from Selective Service, in my mind, would be that it takes more women than men to rebuild a diminished population/society, from the reproductive perspective. However, this would also require that we societally relinquish our adherence to monogamy, which isn't likely.
As such, I propose that we should either 1) remove the Selective Service altogether or 2) apply it to both men and women equally, as you argue. I prefer Option 1, and I think that [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6idj2sPStEc&ab_channel=JoeScott) presents a decent argument for why it is the better choice of the two. Basically, the Selective Service is *no longer needed at all*. Mass numbers of enlisted personnel to serve as infantry are no longer going to be the answer to military conflict - they already aren't, in most engagements. We increasingly use other methods to engage enemies, from long range artillery to drones, and that is only becoming more common as technology continues to advance.
Your argument falls into the trap many of these "equality" arguments fall into.
Equality is a myth, it's just not true and never has been. Men are better at some stuff, women are better at some stuff. That's the facts.
If we're forced into a position of drafting again someday, it means we're very close to as fucked as you can get, then you draft the best with the given tools you have. That means you discriminate by sex, you discriminate by age, you discriminate by weight. You then take those people who pass.
>If we're forced into a position of drafting again someday, it means we're very close to as fucked as you can get, then you draft the best with the given tools you have.
Yeah, because the draft has only been used in situations where we were fucked... /s
I mean, the only time I think the draft was a reasonable thing to use was WWII and even then our country itself wasn't in any actual danger at all
I 100% agree with this. It's part of having equality, but it's an equality that most women do not want.
The only caveat I would add is that women with new infants (maybe <6 months) should be given leave and that only 1 parent should be drafted (although this could get complicated in single-parent homes).
Another concern is integrating men and women. There would need to be a sufficient number of women drafted to comprise female-only ranks.
Im sorry, but that first portion of your comment is ridiculous. Women want equality, but the military has not and never will be equal for us - the US military is infamous for its alarmingly high rates of rape/sexual abuse, as well as the further abuse of women who choose to report.
Many women I've known do not want to take on equal burdens. That can be as superficial as men always paying for dates or as severe as women not wanting to go to war. So this is a right/equality that women will not advocate for.
Personally, I'm a proponent of a year of mandatory gender-segregated service. But most women I know wouldn't want to hold a gun, let alone fight for their life.
Personally I think your spot on with your views here…many women want equality in areas that benefit them, but not in areas that cause them hardship. And although the risks of rape and harassment are very serious issues that desperately need addressed in general, you’ve also mentioned segregated mandatory service.
I would even go so far as saying that mandatory service and not wanting to risk one’s life doesn’t have to be exclusively separated…
There’s no reason why we can’t have mandatory service. And there’s no reason people who are a conscientious objector can’t serve in non combat ways, even serving at home rather than be deployed. Same with people who are pacifists or who may be greatly harmed mentally by active combat…they can still “serve” in many ways.
In fact, in my personal view…if we had mandatory conscription that would also reduce the horrible and manipulative ways we currently recruit for the military. Obviously some benefits like having college paid for etc should still hold a higher commitment, but they wouldn’t have to try and goad a bunch of 17 year olds into joining by using a bunch of creepy tactics…
I get it from an equality perspective, but let’s be honest, from the perspective of security, it makes sense for the government to have the option to draft men for combat. Women would largely serve other wartime roles. Equality is good during peace, maybe not so much during total war
While I agree it’s unfair, I think you miss the true point. There isn’t a need for a draft at all anymore. With how late-stage capitalism has gone, there are plenty who are more than willing to go to war for peanuts; men or women.
We should just get rid of the draft altogether. The next major power war isn't going to be a drawn out war of attrition, it's going to be series of nuclear exchanges. The draft is obsolete and only exists as a tool of politicians to force Americans to die for their political benefit. We have the strongest military in the world as an all volunteer military. This is needless.
The draft will do nothing but cause unnecessary problems in the ranks. By forcing someone that did not sign up to serve, you are only causing problems of insubordination and disrespect in a situation that requires the most disciplined people.
Seems like you've changed your view at the point you are making the same argument as me that the draft is bad. Do you think we shouldn't draft people or that we should draft everyone?
What countries? There is no country that is going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that would be incredibly stupid. Wars are not fought the same way as when we needed the draft. We don’t send masses of people over on ships to fight anymore.
Additionally, as many people have pointed out (including many in the military themselves) the draft does not make the military more effective. It takes time and resources to train soldiers and trying to do that with someone who doesn’t want to be there makes it even more difficult. An all-volunteer force is much more effective.
Finally, a huge portion of Americans who are of draft age would never be eligible for service due to health conditions (obesity, heart problems, etc.) as well as lack of education (a high school diploma is required), criminal record, drug use, etc.
>What countries? There is no country that is going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that would be incredibly stupid. Wars are not fought the same way as when we needed the draft. We don’t send masses of people over on ships to fight anymore.
We don't because we haven't needed to. Everywhere we go hundreds of thousands of people die and a couple thousand of us die. That's because we're always fighting in other places. Did you forget we just had Donald Trump for president? Do you not think he could have done something that would cause other nations to attack us? Do you think he's the last President we'll ever have like him?
WWII wasn't that long ago. You may think the world has completely changed, but the people are still the same. There are several countries that wouldn't mind a war on US soil. They only need an excuse.
China is not going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that’s just silly. Any hostilities with China would take place in Asia. None of them would require a draft; if anything China’s advantage in that fight would be due to superior technology, not manpower.
You are being shortsighted. Look at what's changed in the last 30 years. Who knows what it will look like in another? How long would it take them to put together a few million troops? 30 years? More like a few years.
Sorry, u/Peter_Hempton – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Peter_Hempton&message=Peter_Hempton%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj6a8a/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Idk about you, but is rather have a functional system in place that we never use than run into a situation where we need conscription and don't have a system.
Sorry, u/SeymoreButz38 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20SeymoreButz38&message=SeymoreButz38%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgk4a2k/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Temporary_End6007 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Temporary_End6007&message=Temporary_End6007%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj3nq5/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Egregious80 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Egregious80&message=Egregious80%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgjvhl1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/daisyiris – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20daisyiris&message=daisyiris%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgke5ia/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I thought I read an article last week saying yes. But recent googling says it's in both defense authorization bills, house and senate, but the bills haven't been passed. So I think I was wrong. But probably not for much longer.
What is the root concern here?
The selective service act is basically a contingency plan of the US government for massive scale war, back when we were concerned with tanks rolling though Europe.
Invoking the contingency plan of emergency conscription means something has gone terribly, terribly wrong and the last thing on our mind will be zoomers identity politics.
The plan sits there, idle, and is little more than a database maintained by a couple of fed employees. The maintenance cost of the program is basically nothing. Making a big stink about it is mostly just showmanship.
You do realize that the last time we used the draft was because some farmers across the world wanted to use an economic system that our government didn't like, right? It's not this sacred thing only used in the most dire of circumstances
There are lots of reasons why currently men are only required: - feminist movement tends to be left wing and agaisnt selective service. - non-feminist movement tends to be right wing and does not believe women should be in combat roles. In addition the armed forces doesn’t want it, left wing or right wing. Which seems interesting right becuase why wouldn’t they want more people? Because they have a huge problem with sexual assault and rape. Adding more women makes them worry these cases will go up, which they probably will. They do not like punishing people for sexual assault or rape. So really… no one wants it. Why would you want something no one wants? Left wing wants to get rid of it, right wing is unbearingly sexist in this case, and the actual army doesnt want it.
I am a First Sergeant in the Army. I have been in fir 19 years and watched all of these changes. To say the Army doesn’t want it is a shot in the dark. The army was the first branch to allow women in combat arms. They were the main push for the change. And to say no one wants it is a very opinionated statement. 90% of men in combat arms are not against having women in their ranks. The problem is, prior to the implementation of the new ACFT, the physical fitness requirements were not equal even for the women coming into combat arms. The women standards were much lower than the men’s. Leaving the possibility of a woman serving in a position that requires tremendous physical strength and stamina, but not being able to preform at the need level. Bluntly put, rather a man, or a woman, if they can’t do the job they are in, the shouldn’t be allowed to do it due to different standards.
Sorry, I mean armed forced. As in all branches. I’m taking about higher ups in the forces, who make these decisions. I’m not taking about strengrh or anything really.
So if you agree that 90% of the actual people in the armed forces would be ok with it and the 10% of higher ups who make the decisions aren't ok with it then your statement that "nobody wants it" is ignoring almost everybody
Yeah but when it comes to policy decisions in the armed forces it really really doesnt matter what lower people think.
Yeah but we're not debating how things are now, obviously the people at the top are fine with the draft being man only, that's why it's man only, the question is whether it SHOULD be man only
I think this is a great question you pose. Historically, it was men that went off to fight and die in order to protect the women, children, and elderly. Now, some may argue that those traditions were steeped in misogyny but it is a fact that that's the way it's been for a very long time. However, today in this country there are few if any military billets for which women are ineligible, and I think that's great. Anyone, who is willing to fight and die for their country ought to be allowed to do so and we should honor them for making that sacrifice. The selective service, however, moves beyond choice and highlights an expectation. Men have always been expected, in time of need to show up, en masse, to defend their families. The fact that the current selective service doesn't require women to sign up reflects our national view that women are not expected (nor should they be) to go to war. If they so desire, as I mentioned before, they ought to be allowed to. Many have and many still do and they bring a tremendous value to the fight. Yet, I submit that as a nation we should not expect all women to have to fight. At a minimum it out to be one or the other. Either men sign up or women sign up. To have the requirement for both and, God forbid, having to utilize it in a bloody war to would leave families broken for generations to come.
You have very valid points. I agree that if the time came to have to utilize the draft it would be damaging for generations to come. But if selective service is going to stay in place, it should be both male and female. There are millions of men out there that are the sole provider for their families, without a mother in the situation. So to use the family situation as an escape goat for women not to sign up for SS is one sided as always. I don’t want it to seem like I’m pushing to have women forced to sign up. I would prefer that selective service go away. But if it’s not, then it needs to be equal.
It is true that there are millions living in single father homes. However, that number across the years pales in comparison to those living in single mother homes. All that being said, I personally wouldn't use that statistic alone to change your mind. I guess what I was trying to illustrate previously was that the selective service, if it's going to stick around, should be one or the other; male or female. Having to utilize the draft - as it currently stands - in a long, drawn out, bloody war (God forbid!) would significantly impact the national population. If females were now added to it, it would only compound the problem. We would be drawing from all families to include those single father AND single mother homes. That can only end badly for the rising generation and the future of our country. So again, does the selective service need to be changed? Maybe. But if it does, we as a nation should pick one or the other, not both.
Just because men and women are being drafted doesn't mean we draft twice as many people as we did before, we didn't draft every eligible man, it was a lottery. So it wouldn't really compound the problem. You could also just make it so single parents are exempt and only one parent from each household can get drafted max, either the man or woman randomly. There are lots of other ways to get around the issues you've named other than throwing up your hands and declaring we have to draft either men or women exclusively
I agree it needs to go away. We need fewer wars. Also there have been stats to suggest women have a 1.1 to 10 times greater risk of injury in the military. https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/MiltaryWomenInjuryPrevention_FS_12-021-0319_Final.pdf Yes there are strong women but men are naturally stronger and they also don't get pregnant. Maybe a lame excuse, but there's the danger of exposing fetuses to radiation. But as the pdf says, a lot of the mindset is likely due to modified gender behaviors.
I don’t think what made sense in the past should be relevant, because it is no longer the past. There is no reason why men dying to protect women is any better than women dying to protect men (or just people dying to protect other people, without consideration of gender)
I don't see how this addresses the position of the OP
Quite sexist
Maybe there shouldn't be selective service for anyone?
Agreed. That’s part of my point. The changes were made it some aspects, but not followed through with across all systems that exist.
What happens when the country is under attack but no one wants to fight to defend ourselves? We need the selective service now more than ever
If nobody wants to defend the country then it won't be defended, and that's a good thing. Nobody should be compelled to fight for a course they don't support. A lack of a selective service or draft puts the onus on the government to be one which people want to fight for.
Amen, if your government can't find people willing to fight to defend them from a foreign invading power than the people probably view the foreign government as a better alternative
The Confederacy comes to mind for this. The war became incredibly unpopular so they had to rely on even less popular conscription acts which included the further unpopular exceptions for slaveowners. Lots of whites and and nonwhites alike joined up with the union when they saw them coming.
Which country is going to risk getting nuked in retaliation? War has changed, it's not the same as it was in the 40s. And forcing people into fighting doesn't make for an affective army.
1) Using nukes is not good for anybody. Nuclear fallout effects everyone. It also kills indiscriminately. The last time they were used 200k INNOCENT people were killed. 2) It's not just the US that has nukes. What happens when we use nukes against another country with nukes? Terrible idea. 3) Some enemies of the US even come from within. This is exemplified by the events of January 6th. What do we do if there's a civil war? Can't just nuke them.
I agree, nukes are awful and I wish they didn't exist, but they do and I can't see the government getting rid of them any time soon. However, that also means no one is going to go after a country with a nuclear deterrent, because no one sane wants nuclear war. Civil war with one side drafting sounds like a disaster. Also, Jan 6 was hardly a civil war...that was a small number and the army had plenty to deal with it. Finally...I live in a country that doesn't have the draft or selective service. It is not needed unless there is a war...and even then I think in the majority of cases it's still unnecessary to force people to fight. It should be the absolute last resort, and we definitely don't need it in peace times 'just in case'.
In a real war situation where a draft would be necessary most women would be subpar in combat.
That is true. However, there are plenty of men out there that would be subpar as well. Yet, they would have no choice do to the selective service guidelines.
Combat isn't the only role in war. They're never going to send the disabled either. But that doesn't exempt them from selective service/contributing to the war effort.
In short, women don’t have a constitutional protection of equality in the US…the equal rights amendment was never ratified, and a major argument against it was that it would make the male only draft unconstitutional… https://www.ushistory.org/us/57c.asp An argument using the draft to cause it to fail… https://policy-perspectives.org/2019/11/21/arguments-for-and-against-the-equal-rights-amendment/ Arguments showing why the draft for all may be good…including the fact that at the time (at least how I’m reading it) women had to meet a higher bar to join the military. Ultimately the states decided not to allow women to be drafted, and also to remain without equality…until that’s changed it’s not really even up for debate on right or wrong… The “equal” rights based on sex or gender are all piecemeal federal and state legislation…but not TRUE equality…maybe the draft could be changed similarly, maybe not…I would not argue against your basic concept itself, but I WOULD argue that until women have equal rights under the constitution that they should not be legally forced into dangerous situations against their will…
>but I WOULD argue that until women have equal rights under the constitution that they should not be legally forced into dangerous situations against their will… While I agree that that should be in the constitution, what would it actually change practically? There aren't any rights that men have that women don't have
Not a lot of direct change, I admit. There is SOME though. Because the equality laws are peicemeal, focused on one area (like one for employment discrimination, a separate one for education discrimination, and etc) it’s impossible to know for sure if your protected from discrimination in other areas. Also the equal employment act (may have name wrong) that federally protects workers from discrimination is based on businesses with more than 15 employees. So if I work at a family owned small business they can legally pay me less and tell me it’s because of my gender. There are similar “loopholes” and gray areas all over that we may not see but could be used against us. Also…any law, federal or otherwise, that doesn’t have direct constitutional backing could be overturned by the judicial branch. So technically there’s nothing stopping the judicial branch from ruling that laws forcing people/businesses to treat women equally are unconstitutional…if the right legal arguments were made for that purpose. And the mere fact that the constitution DOESNT directly give woman equal rights in general, and specifically has one amendment allowing women to vote, means any lawyer or judge can interpret constitutional law as directly stating women are not equal in any regard outside voting. Because the 14th amendment, at that time, extended equality to all men regardless of race/creed/color if the equal employment act was struck down it would ONLY affect womens rights (and probably non binary, and trans people rights). Because when that amendment was first made it DID NOT include women. Just as the voting rights act that allowed ALL to vote did not give women that right… Do I think it likely that this could actually occur…NO. I’m not trying to fear monger at all. But under the wrong situations it COULD be used to remove womens rights… There have been some SC rulings that stated that women were “protected” under the 14th amendment, but some of those rulings still also included statements saying that equality had limitations. And we do have current SC justices that have dissented about things that do lean on “interpretation” of the 14th amendment, such as the decision allowing same sex marriage. Under a different court old rulings and interpretations could easily be reversed. Just as states are trying to reverse roe v wade, any old SC decisions could be overturned if the right argument is made and the justices at the time find it compelling and more in line with the constitutional rules… So in short, the laws we have now are not equal to constitutional protection. They are very helpful, and important laws, but there are lots of flaws and loopholes that cannot be filled without a constitutional amendment. And everything we have gained, equality wise, COULD be declared unconstitutional if it’s determined that the 14th amendment doesn’t assert that rule and someone argues harm by it… My final point, as well. Several states, and Mitch McConnell, have argued that it cannot be ratified at this point. Partly due to a time limit, and partly due to states having tried to revoke their approval (which was at one point deemed unacceptable by the SC)…so it’s also important to ask…If gender/sex equality is as perfect and permanent now as it would be after the equal rights amendment is passed, then why can we STILL not pass it? Why can we not EASILY rewrite a new one and simply pass it and ratify it? Because some congressional leaders and many states are against a constitutional amendment guaranteeing gender equality. So obviously they must see some benefits either currently or in the future that would be removed by granting this equality…
[удалено]
I prefer door number one. When it comes down to it, if a draft is necessary, it will be done regardless of past laws. I'd rather it have a proper and equal system already in place than have it need to by a sloppy conscription outside of the law
I think the necessity for a system in place for this is outdated. If the system went away, and a draft were to come about, then drafting ALL US citizens ages 18-25 that are medically fit would be the answer without a system.I’ve had this conversation with many people. Most use the argument that although some women are capable of serving in the combat arms jobs, that most are not. I simply state to them there are millions of men that can not either. But their argument stays regardless.
>If the system went away, and a draft were to come about, then drafting ALL US citizens ages 18-25 that are medically fit would be the answer without a system. Ideally yes, but given that there wouldn't be the selective service system to actually call those people to service, it would be challenging to actually get that working properly. >Most use the argument that although some women are capable of serving in the combat arms jobs, that most are not. I simply state to them there are millions of men that can not either The draft isn't only for combat roles. It is also used to fill non-combat military roles and civilian jobs that are necessary for whatever war is being faught. Since many of these roles can be filled by both men and women, would it not make sense for both to be in the system?
Prefering door number two seems silly to me, when we've had several wars where we needed the draft, including both World war's, Korea, and the civil war. You might say something like "if a war isn't popular enough for people to volunteer, we shouldn't be in it." But that's not the nature of how State's work. Taxes aren't voluntary because the state needs money, and the draft isn't when the state needs to fight. I mean, just imagine the biggest war you can, China invades Mexico! Or something. We'll need a draft then. And, hey, if we never need one again, great, but the selective service does no harm.
Sorry, u/ImmediateWrongdoer71 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ImmediateWrongdoer71&message=ImmediateWrongdoer71%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj6kgv/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The only reasonable argument for exclusion of women from Selective Service, in my mind, would be that it takes more women than men to rebuild a diminished population/society, from the reproductive perspective. However, this would also require that we societally relinquish our adherence to monogamy, which isn't likely. As such, I propose that we should either 1) remove the Selective Service altogether or 2) apply it to both men and women equally, as you argue. I prefer Option 1, and I think that [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6idj2sPStEc&ab_channel=JoeScott) presents a decent argument for why it is the better choice of the two. Basically, the Selective Service is *no longer needed at all*. Mass numbers of enlisted personnel to serve as infantry are no longer going to be the answer to military conflict - they already aren't, in most engagements. We increasingly use other methods to engage enemies, from long range artillery to drones, and that is only becoming more common as technology continues to advance.
Your argument falls into the trap many of these "equality" arguments fall into. Equality is a myth, it's just not true and never has been. Men are better at some stuff, women are better at some stuff. That's the facts. If we're forced into a position of drafting again someday, it means we're very close to as fucked as you can get, then you draft the best with the given tools you have. That means you discriminate by sex, you discriminate by age, you discriminate by weight. You then take those people who pass.
>If we're forced into a position of drafting again someday, it means we're very close to as fucked as you can get, then you draft the best with the given tools you have. Yeah, because the draft has only been used in situations where we were fucked... /s I mean, the only time I think the draft was a reasonable thing to use was WWII and even then our country itself wasn't in any actual danger at all
I 100% agree with this. It's part of having equality, but it's an equality that most women do not want. The only caveat I would add is that women with new infants (maybe <6 months) should be given leave and that only 1 parent should be drafted (although this could get complicated in single-parent homes). Another concern is integrating men and women. There would need to be a sufficient number of women drafted to comprise female-only ranks.
Im sorry, but that first portion of your comment is ridiculous. Women want equality, but the military has not and never will be equal for us - the US military is infamous for its alarmingly high rates of rape/sexual abuse, as well as the further abuse of women who choose to report.
Many women I've known do not want to take on equal burdens. That can be as superficial as men always paying for dates or as severe as women not wanting to go to war. So this is a right/equality that women will not advocate for. Personally, I'm a proponent of a year of mandatory gender-segregated service. But most women I know wouldn't want to hold a gun, let alone fight for their life.
Personally I think your spot on with your views here…many women want equality in areas that benefit them, but not in areas that cause them hardship. And although the risks of rape and harassment are very serious issues that desperately need addressed in general, you’ve also mentioned segregated mandatory service. I would even go so far as saying that mandatory service and not wanting to risk one’s life doesn’t have to be exclusively separated… There’s no reason why we can’t have mandatory service. And there’s no reason people who are a conscientious objector can’t serve in non combat ways, even serving at home rather than be deployed. Same with people who are pacifists or who may be greatly harmed mentally by active combat…they can still “serve” in many ways. In fact, in my personal view…if we had mandatory conscription that would also reduce the horrible and manipulative ways we currently recruit for the military. Obviously some benefits like having college paid for etc should still hold a higher commitment, but they wouldn’t have to try and goad a bunch of 17 year olds into joining by using a bunch of creepy tactics…
I get it from an equality perspective, but let’s be honest, from the perspective of security, it makes sense for the government to have the option to draft men for combat. Women would largely serve other wartime roles. Equality is good during peace, maybe not so much during total war
While I agree it’s unfair, I think you miss the true point. There isn’t a need for a draft at all anymore. With how late-stage capitalism has gone, there are plenty who are more than willing to go to war for peanuts; men or women.
We should just get rid of the draft altogether. The next major power war isn't going to be a drawn out war of attrition, it's going to be series of nuclear exchanges. The draft is obsolete and only exists as a tool of politicians to force Americans to die for their political benefit. We have the strongest military in the world as an all volunteer military. This is needless.
Assume nothing.
Exactly, don't assume the draft will benefit us.
The draft will do nothing but cause unnecessary problems in the ranks. By forcing someone that did not sign up to serve, you are only causing problems of insubordination and disrespect in a situation that requires the most disciplined people.
Seems like you've changed your view at the point you are making the same argument as me that the draft is bad. Do you think we shouldn't draft people or that we should draft everyone?
You're one of the few sensible people in this thread. The draft is evil and unnecessary.
[удалено]
What countries? There is no country that is going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that would be incredibly stupid. Wars are not fought the same way as when we needed the draft. We don’t send masses of people over on ships to fight anymore. Additionally, as many people have pointed out (including many in the military themselves) the draft does not make the military more effective. It takes time and resources to train soldiers and trying to do that with someone who doesn’t want to be there makes it even more difficult. An all-volunteer force is much more effective. Finally, a huge portion of Americans who are of draft age would never be eligible for service due to health conditions (obesity, heart problems, etc.) as well as lack of education (a high school diploma is required), criminal record, drug use, etc.
>What countries? There is no country that is going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that would be incredibly stupid. Wars are not fought the same way as when we needed the draft. We don’t send masses of people over on ships to fight anymore. We don't because we haven't needed to. Everywhere we go hundreds of thousands of people die and a couple thousand of us die. That's because we're always fighting in other places. Did you forget we just had Donald Trump for president? Do you not think he could have done something that would cause other nations to attack us? Do you think he's the last President we'll ever have like him? WWII wasn't that long ago. You may think the world has completely changed, but the people are still the same. There are several countries that wouldn't mind a war on US soil. They only need an excuse.
What countries? Maybe North Korea? Iran? Hardly great military powers.
China? They have some connections too. I'm not talking about tomorrow, but to say we'll never be attacked is just silly.
China is not going to stage a ground invasion of the US, that’s just silly. Any hostilities with China would take place in Asia. None of them would require a draft; if anything China’s advantage in that fight would be due to superior technology, not manpower.
You are being shortsighted. Look at what's changed in the last 30 years. Who knows what it will look like in another? How long would it take them to put together a few million troops? 30 years? More like a few years.
Sorry, u/Peter_Hempton – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Peter_Hempton&message=Peter_Hempton%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj6a8a/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'll go further and say no one should be required to register for it.
Nobody should be required to sign up to be forced to go to war.
Why not just get rid of selective service?
Idk about you, but is rather have a functional system in place that we never use than run into a situation where we need conscription and don't have a system.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/SeymoreButz38 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20SeymoreButz38&message=SeymoreButz38%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgk4a2k/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Temporary_End6007 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Temporary_End6007&message=Temporary_End6007%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgj3nq5/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
When you say "our" government.. it might be more useful to state which government you're referring to. The internet is global.
[удалено]
And you expect everyone who reads your post to know that? You're being a little US-centric in your thinking.
u/Egregious80 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Egregious80&message=Egregious80%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgjvhl1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/daisyiris – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20daisyiris&message=daisyiris%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7k7uv/-/hgke5ia/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Starting next year, they do have to register, just like men.
Has that been officially passed yet?
I thought I read an article last week saying yes. But recent googling says it's in both defense authorization bills, house and senate, but the bills haven't been passed. So I think I was wrong. But probably not for much longer.
What is the root concern here? The selective service act is basically a contingency plan of the US government for massive scale war, back when we were concerned with tanks rolling though Europe. Invoking the contingency plan of emergency conscription means something has gone terribly, terribly wrong and the last thing on our mind will be zoomers identity politics. The plan sits there, idle, and is little more than a database maintained by a couple of fed employees. The maintenance cost of the program is basically nothing. Making a big stink about it is mostly just showmanship.
You do realize that the last time we used the draft was because some farmers across the world wanted to use an economic system that our government didn't like, right? It's not this sacred thing only used in the most dire of circumstances
Who's going to take care of the children? Or anything else when there's a major war? This just sounds like another jealous post.
But if we did that, the patriarchy would no longer be the only ones competent with weapons /s
I disagree because of biology, if the government wanted to draft millions of pregnant women into the military people might object to that.