Yesterday, the Senate voted to extend the draft to women who turn 18 during or after 2018. Obama has promised to veto such a bill, but there is probably enough support in congress to override a veto.
This development was inevitable. Once women were allowed to serve in combat positions, there's no logical reason to say that they shouldn't be subject to the draft.
I opposed allowing women to serve in combat positions. I hold the monstrously retrograde opinion that women are different from men. Women can fight, and many women are stronger and more agile than many men; but, as C. S. Lewis says in The Last Battle, "Wars are ugly when women fight." Wars are uglier still, and so is the home front, when women are forced to go to war. I find myself at a loss to explain why, to those who don't find this truth obvious. It's like explaining why buttered toast smells good, or why bottomless holes are terrifying. What can I say?
I have many female friends who have served honorably in the military, and I am grateful for their service and their sacrifice, which has kept us a relatively free nation. If women want to serve in the military, I would thank and support them.
But requiring women to serve is an entirely different proposition. Women in the military already face a host of problems, which they can overcome with tremendous effort. Imagine increasing their numbers exponentially, and then imagine that most of these women do not want to serve. Here are just a few of the issues we'll face:
- If you're one of the small minority of women who can pass the same physical tests as men, and you are put in a combat role, you'll be one or two women in the company of many, many men. Most men are not rapists, but some of them are, especially if you add the stress and exhaustion of combat.
- Sexual abuse and misconduct is widespread even within our own ranks. What do you suppose happens to women who are captured by ISIS or other hostile forces? They understand very well that systematic rape is a devastating weapon of war.
- What if women get pregnant, through rape or through consensual relationships? A general recently explained that he tends to punish pregnant women soldiers, sometimes with court martial. He was glad to see that the military now provides abortions, because now they can more quickly put themselves back at his disposal as commander. In theory, the military gives women twelve weeks' leave if they become pregnant. In practice, they are pressured to abort.
- Men and women serving together, especially under stressful situations, will naturally fall into romantic and/or sexual relationships, and these will naturally fall apart, sometimes in ugly, contentious ways. Even if no one gets pregnant, imagine what would happen to the group's cohesion once there are angry exes living side by side.
- Men can pee anywhere. Women are much more vulnerable when they have to go.
- Women menstruate. How will that work in the field? The answer is, of course, that there will be tremendous pressure to go on contraceptives that halt menstruation—contraceptives that are often disastrous to their health, not to mention immoral for Catholics.
- Even strong, fit women tend to be smaller and less powerful than strong, fit men. Ask a woman in the military if this has ever created a problem for her. Just ask.
These are all problems that exist when women serve voluntarily. Now imagine if these are women who have been called up with little warning, and with little desire to serve.
And what about the effect on the families of women who are drafted?
What if you were homeschooling? That's out.
What if you wanted to breastfeed? That's out.
What if you have a lot of responsibilities at home and you were already struggling to find help, and have no idea who could possibly care for your duties if you were to leave? Too bad.
If you think that military families are respected and accommodated when they have difficult home situations, then you are immensely naive.
But what about countries like Israel and Denmark that already require women to serve? How do they manage? Well, they have long-established cultural structures and expectations in place. Young people already know that a certain period of their life will be in the military, and they make plans well ahead of time, excluding women from combat and permitting religious exemptions. The United States has no such structures in place, especially if the service is unpredictable, as it would be with a draft.
The military is already overwhelmed and failing to support military families at even the most basic level, at accommodating families with special needs, at giving veterans medical and psychological care in a timely way, and at following up with veterans who come home with PTSD, suicidal tendencies, and anger problems. All of this is dreadful and shameful.
Do we want to double it?
The draft has always disrupted the lives of young men, sometimes in disastrous and horrifying ways. The draft has always snatched people out of their lives and wreaked havoc on plans and desires. The draft is a terrible thing, which historically disproportionately affects poor, uneducated, minority citizens.
But, as I said, adding women to the draft is completely consistent reasoning by today's standards. If we want to argue that men and women are interchangeable, then there is no reason not to subject women to the draft. It's just logical.
Even more logical? Abolish the draft. Warfare has changed so much, there is no longer any advantage to feeding as many bodies as possible into the inferno of war like so much firewood. There should be no draft, and we should quash our national habit of leaping headfirst into every unfinishable war that whispers our name.
But even if none of that changes, women should still not be drafted. We do not want all men to learn how to stamp out that instinct that makes them want to protect women, whether those women are by their side in the field, or at home keeping the peaceable world from falling apart. We do not want women to learn how to briskly turn their kids over to the first warm body who doesn't refuse them. We do not want women to be treated and to behave just like men.
A good many of my friends have crankily observed that this is exactly what women do want. And some women do. Some women have been striving and struggling to persuade the world that men and women are only different through an accident of biology, and that we can overcome even that with the right pharmaceuticals.
But many more women have been striving and struggling to persuade the world that men and women both have rights and responsibilities, and should both be treated with dignity and respect . . . but that these rights and responsibilities don't always look the same for all men and for all women.
Men are better suited for combat. Biologically, psychologically, and emotionally, you will find countless more men than women who endure and even thrive in combat roles, and in military roles in general. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully blind. Men and women are not interchangeable. You can squeeze society hard enough to make them pretend that it is true, but it will always be women and children who suffer; and when women and children suffer, the whole world bleeds.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
I was the NCOIC of a very small remote outpost (Forward Operating Base) in Afghanistan. We only had Special Operations Forces (SOF)in the camp and there were no females in the camp…...that is until…
One day a Democratic Congresswoman toured the FOB and was upset that we didn’t have any women in the camp and she made it very clear to me that she was going to change that. Well she returned to Washington DC and sure enough within 2 weeks we had our first female soldier in the camp. She was an Intelligence Agent (they sometimes wear civilian clothes instead of the uniform) and she arrived wearing tight jeans, a tight t-shirt, makeup and perfume. Don’t get me wrong, I am not faulting her for wanting to look nice just trying to clearly/accurately depict the situation. Keep in mind, the men in the camp had not seen a woman in over 6 months let alone one in tight jeans with makeup and perfume.
Within 8 weeks she had “dated” (and broken up with) 3 of the soldiers and “dating” a 4th soldier. Without going into all of the details of how that one female being placed in our remote outpost disrupted day to day operations I can tell you without a doubt it was an ill advised (and irresponsible) decision.
It was unnecessary and put peoples lives at risk. Distracted soldiers make mistakes, mistakes in combat get people killed. It was not the female soldiers fault, it was our fault for unnecessarily placing her in the camp simply because someone thought not having her there meant that she was “less than” the male soldiers.
Listen up people, men and women are “equal” but they are also “different”.
I was responsible for the health, morale and welfare of those soldiers in Afghanistan and I can tell you without hesitation that we let all of them down and placed them at risk by insisting that a female soldier be placed at a remote outpost simply because of the very confused logic that says that “different” somehow means “less” it does not….it’s apples and oranges.
You are creating a crisis where one does not exist and from my personal experience in Afghanistan and Iraq you do so at the risk of others. This is selfish and irresponsible.
This is the effect of incrementalism: even this author, who 30 years ago would have scoffed at even the notion of women in the military voluntarily, has now conceded that he/she does not have a problem with women serving. Women have no place in the military. God simply did not make them for this duty. Even if there were the few superwomen who could pass all the physical tests (there really aren’t), how about unit morale/cohesion, the complexity of intersex relations during times of combat and extreme duress, the psychological effect on men of seeing women get shot and scream in agony, their weaker bones making them more prone to injury in battle (where other soldiers (read: men) will have to put their lives in jeopardy to rescue them)? Won’t this raise our casualties and diminish effectiveness? We’re sacrificing the military’s effectiveness to spare the feelings of a few confused women?
Just say the plain truth, author: the emperor has no clothes, and women make awful soldiers. They have no place in the military. Sorry if reality-deniers find this offensive. Women in the military are akin to stay-at-home dads. They turn my stomach. Catholics need holy boldness to say this.
“This will decrease if EVERYONE shares the load, not just the poor, the less educated, which is the system in place today.”
Voice, what are you talking about? Poor and less educated? How insulting can you be? I’ve got a newsflash for you: our active duty military is made up of some of the most intelligent, highly-educated and capable men and women you’ll ever meet. My LTC husband has 4 Master’s degrees. As for being poor, I’m not sure how that’s a mark against someone who volunteers to serve their country, but that’s not an accurate representation of our military, either.
Simcha, thank you for an excellent description of the reasons this is wrongheaded. But why are you treating it as a foregone conclusion upon which you merely comment and passively deplore? Shouldn’t you be calling on readers to flood Congress with phone calls and emails protesting this language? Isn’t there still time to get the language out in reconciliation before it even hits the president’s desk? Please urge readers to do that!
Women should not be drafted. At ages eighteen through thirty, women unlike men are at their most fertile. The military has been giving women volunteers depo provera shots which have many nasty side effects and can cause permanent infertility. This is done to prevent women from becoming pregnant before their service is up. It is also done because women have been raped in the military something the military and the government has tried to cover-up. The government should never get to pick and choose which women will be allowed to have children between eighteen and thirty and which ones will not.
Furthermore, a draft of women sets both mothers and fathers up for the draft. No mother’s milk for the children of drafted women. The Senate is ignoring the importance of the bond between children and their mothers. The Senate is also setting children up to be complete orphans. Who will take care of the children whose mothers and fathers are drafted?
Some people say that women wanted to be soldiers. I doubt this because only twenty percent of women are volunteering to serve in the military. Of that, only a handful wanted into combat for career purposes.
It is foolish and cruel to women to ignore all the physical and psychological differences between men and women that make the drafting of women a bad idea. Women and men do not have an equal chance of surviving combat because women are not as physically strong as men. If there is a draft of women, women will be placed in combat positions even though physical education records show that boys become stronger than girls in puberty and the gap continues to grow throughout puberty. The Marine Commandant Gen. Joe Dunford released a Marine study which showed the strongest female Marines were unable to equal the performance of average male Marines in tests of physical performance and he made it clear that the female Marines were motivated and wanted to excel. The female combat experiment is one that no one should be compelled to take part in.
Just to mention, I’m not in favor of women in combat roles. Not that women can’t do it. The scariest fighters in WWII were supposedly Russian women. But for the same reason that the Army excluded homosexuals. You can’t have conflicted interests in battle.
But we need some kind of service required of young people. If not military, then to the community.
Does Israel still have mandatory military service for ALL adult citizens? We could learn from them without all the reflexive reactions.
Dear Simcha,
I respectfully offer a vastly different, opposite opinion. Both men and women should be drafted AND the draft should be reinstated, all requiring to serve a mandatory term after High School. Those who can’t handle the rigors of being “in the field” serve in support roles. Your article seems to have more to do w/ going to war and violence. This will decrease if EVERYONE shares the load, not just the poor, the less educated, which is the system in place today. We all should share and be concerned about our nation’s defense. All we become more “engaged” in the issues if they or their families are at risk. Today… we simply hire “mercenaries” to secure our land and fight our battles, war. Keep the draft and implement it. That is the path to greater peace and security in my view. And lastly, all the concerns, objections you have about women serving have indeed been addressed over time by other countries. We need to begin making the change ourselves. In time, your concerns will go away. I realize you prefer, maybe can’t imagine serving, which is exactly why you SHOULD be or have been drafted and serve. It has a sobering effect of what is at stake for individuals, our nation and humanity.
When boys/men turn 18, they are supposed to register just in case there ever is a draft. To me, it makes sense that women share the responsibilities of citizenship too. Registering is not the same as being drafted. Also, there is no political will for a draft, and Congress could not pass a bill instituting it. Let’s face it—in a country where I can now choose my gender, do you really think that the government could force people into military service?
Even more logical? Abolish the draft. Warfare has changed so much, there is no longer any advantage to feeding as many bodies as possible into the inferno of war like so much firewood. There should be no draft, and we should quash our national habit of leaping headfirst into every unfinishable war that whispers our name.
You had better hope Korea never happens. That will be a slog of bodies, unless it goes fully nuclear of course. The plan for Korea is one that is HEAVILY reliant on infantrymen. The North will be able to initially cause such heavy casualties from artillery, that disease will very likely spread rapidly because of the decaying bodies. And, it will not be something that we can really protect our forces from.
Replacements will be needed quickly at the heavy brigade level, and you can be absolutely certain that Selective Service will be implementing a draft at that point.
Furthermore, by opening all combat positions to both sexes, the justification for not including women disappears, and it will do so at the level of “equal protection” if and when this gets to the Court. The JCS knows this and that’s why the Joint Chiefs are saying just get it done.
With that said, I hate the idea. I was an infantryman, having served in Beirut, Panama, Gulf I and Somalia. I worked on the Hill for well over 15 years doing both House and Senate Armed Services Committee work. It’s a bad idea, but it’s going to happen. It’ll probably be tossed out in Conference this year. But it will happen.
@Will, sure there is no draft right now, but there is Selective Service registration…for the draft. By the way, the Selective Service card includes a check box for both male and female. This has been in the works for quite some time.
I think everyone should be “drafted” at 18 for either military or community service. Sort of like the Mormons do. Or Israel does.Many young people these days extend adolescence into their 30’s. It would be nice to see them give something back to society and mature a little.
I’m pretty sure there is still no draft in the United States. What we have is mandatory registration by young men turning 18 (and now presumably women as well). It comes as no surprise in this culture where gender is at the discretion and whim of the individual, and the mandates that all military occupational specialties be open to everyone without regard to gender. If Obama vetoes the measure, it would be a major hypocrisy for his administration’s efforts to be all inclusive all the time. Without conscription, the point is really moot anyway, it’s just a bit more political posturing.
Simcha I usually agree with you, but on this one I think you’re wrong. Not necessarily about adding women to the draft - I think it’s arguable in both directions - but about abolishing the draft. Maintaining this requirement is actually a form of democratic check on our government’s ability to wage war. When the population knows that any of their sons (and perhaps daughters) may be drafted, they pay more attention to the reasons for fighting. I think the fact that we’ve gone to an all-volunteer military has allowed much of the population to forget about the cost of war and the sacrifice it demands. It’s too easy for people to go “Well they knew what they were signing up for” or to smear the armed services as full of people seeking violence. There are certainly benefits to a volunteer force - it’s more efficient to invest in training members who plan to stay in for a career, and the commitment is more reliable. But even having the spectre of a possible draft is important to reign in a (universal) government tendency to use the military for political gain rather than just defense. And if heaven forbid something happens when we NEED the draft, it’s better to be prepared with a system in place than try to rebuild it from scratch.
Instead of keeping women out of the military to prevent sexual assaults, how about strictly rooting out the sources of them—rapists in uniform! As for women being drafted, not every position in the military is a combat one. Assignments should be made on the basis of abilities. But there is no justification for imposing military obligations on men while giving a blanket exemption to all women. Exceptions can be made similar to those in the past allowing one son not to be in the military if the rest of his brothers are in, educational deferments, maternity/paternity leaves, etc. We all have an equal stake in society and we all should be subject to the same rights and responsibilities. Equality is not a one-way street (i.e., equality of rights but not obligations). If anything, including women in the draft is long overdue.
I think that there would be a big uproar if the draft would be reinstated. I remember in the Vietnam war boys burning their draft cards! Furthermore, if there ever was a danger to our country, women might enlist and would be sought for things like nurses. There is a certain portion of women in World War 11 that flew planes, and could have been in danger of beige shot down or captured. But again it should be voluntary not forced. We are also entering a more technological age where there will probably be less combat on the ground and more use of drones and robotics. Some of this is in use today, and humans have to program it. I could see women doing that too. My daughter enlisted in the Navy, and although she never was on a ship she learned other things such as radar, also very important. The major that made that remark about pregnant women should retract those words or get demoted. I do know though when the stress got too much for some girls in boot camp, that was their way out. Perhaps we need a little more stringent testing and some knowledge of what these girls are signing up for.
SJ, I am a Lewis geek as well—and Father Christmas didn’t say that to Lucy “later,” but at the same time he was presenting the gift to her. Thank you for joining me in Narnia Nitpicking!
The military’s physical requirements are “dumbed down” for women, e.g., in order to pass the physical, women in the Marines are not required to do pull-ups.
For over 40 years, my Dad was a lineman for Ma Bell. In the 1970’s they buckled to political correctness and lowered the physical requirements of the job so that women could be linemen. There are women firefighters… I don’t know about y’all, but I would prefer a strong man over a woman who passed a sissified test to haul me out of a burning building.
Any man in combat who hasn’t been desensitized by shrill, feminist harpies would be placed at a higher risk in battle as he strives to protect weaker female comrades.
Reality check, Simcha. No one has been drafted since 1972. There is a legal requirement for men to register for the draft but it is never enforced and many ignore it. This actually will have very little effect on women or anyone else.
There are several nations throughout the world, including Israel, in which women are drafted. This is a conservative post, and doesn’t have much to do with Catholicism.
I strongly second Simcha’s comments about rape in the military. I’m a physician at the VA and the vast majority of the women whom I see who have “Military Sexual Trauma” in their chart. It is something that women should strongly consider before signing up.
Not to be overly picky, but I’m too much of a C.S. Lewis geek to avoid pointing out that the quote is from “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” Here’s a good synopsis from Joe Carter at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight):
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe , Father Christmas issues weapons to the Pevensie children. Peter receives a sword and a shield, Susan receives a bow and arrow and a magical horn that will summon help whenever it’s blown, and Lucy receives a dagger and a magic vial that restores the health of anyone injured. Later, before the White Witch’s army, Father Christmas tells the sisters that he has given them these weapons only so that the girls can defend themselves “in great need . . . for I do not mean you to fight in the battle.” Lucy is offended, believing her bravery is being questioned, but he tells her, “That is not the point . . . battles are ugly when women fight.”
Israel is a distraction not a comparison. It is a tiny country with enemies all around it. The women are fighting near their families for the right to exist.
As if those weren’t enough reasons….. now that the government is providing FREE birth control, it is a short walk to REQUIRING women to be on some form of chemical birth control while in the military, thus negating any objection to pressure to abort. Wrong, wrong, wrong…...in so many ways. Also, I fail to see the logical connection between women in combat & women in the draft, but they seem to think they are related. This is so much more an issue of gender politics than that: if gender is a construct, then there are no differences between men and women, and women in selective service makes perfect sense. Still so wrong.
There is no draft for men or women. All this talk of drafting women is pure politics. The Government does some dumb things, but I doubt that they are so dumb that they will starting drafting women. After the disaster of Vietnam, the military itself does not want a draft, they prefer volunteers. The kind of wars that require a draft no longer exist for the US. I would not worry about it.
If they did instate a draft that included women, I doubt it would included anyone over 26. I also think that we would see a huge baby boom as most girls would allow themselves to get pregnant if they thought it would allow them to escape the draft and it probably would as pregnant women get special treatment.
I don’t think women should join the military or get involved in combat, but I highly doubt such a draft would even work.
Sarah:
Sen McCain knows exactly what can happen in combat, so whatever he asks, he asks with full and very personal knowledge of possible consequences. Disagree with him, but please don’t sneer at him.
There is no real tradition of a draft in this country. It was not poplar during the Civil War, barely popular during our very short involvement in World War I, and popular in World War II because of the appalling behavior of the Axis governments and because we were attacked. After WWII, support waned and disappeared. Countries that face threats of attack by an enemy with big armies need a draft. We do not currently face such a threat, although if we’re not careful that could change. You don’t prevent war just by saying you don’t want it, as many thought in the 1930s.
What if I’m a man, (or better yet, a biologically male person) who identifies as female? Will I be excluded from the draft?
This is not about the draft…that term is not inter-changeable with Selective Service. There has not been a draft since the Vietnam War, and it is very unlikely in today’s social and political climate. America just engaged in two very long and costly wars/conflicts without instituting the draft.
There is no draft. There is a structure to implement a draft if Congress decided to use it, but there is no draft into the US Military. We have a 100% volunteer Military. Votes about who to include in the draft are irrelevant. There is no political will to re-institute the draft.
Simcha: Don’t second guess the logic of God….or natural law.
If God had thought like you that men are naturally stronger, can pee anywhere, fit better into combat roles, are more powerful, etc., He would have made men have the babies!!!!!
I’m with you. We have enough people join the military voluntarily so a draft is not really needed.
Sen. Warmonger McCain supports this. I wonder how well his daughter Meghan would fare in the military.
If you’re in AZ, please unseat this guy. Vote Kelli Ward.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.