Oh, I know what the anti-feminists are going to say: “Women have always wanted equal rights (i.e. voting) but not equal responsibility (i.e. being drafted).”
Here's the thing, though. Women *did* have responsibility. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, made a speech saying that women’s responsibility was to give birth to the next generation, and men’s was to go to war, and that both men and women should be equally shamed if they shirked their duties. Both men and women were expected to give blood for their nation.
I'll address the whole "but childbirth is voluntary and being drafted into war is not!" bit in a second, but first I'd like to say that the roles make sense. Men and women are physically dimorphic. Obviously only women can give birth, & there's also the fact that men are much brutely stronger than women which makes them more equipped for warfare. Studies show that although men and women do NOT differ much in PSYCHOLOGICAL traits such as assertiveness, men and women are completely physically dimorphic with almost no overlap when it comes to brute strength.
Research shows that the average man has higher brute strength than 99% of women, and also that men have 90% higher upper body strength on average, and 65% higher lower body strength.
Yes there are technically ways now that women can partake in war using technology. But it’s precisely that: technology gave them that opportunity to engage in an activity that they're not built for. Should we now make technology so that men can go through childbirth? For equality?
As a note, the brute strength differences do not mean that men are superior to, or even overall stronger than, women. It is just that men and women generally store their strength in different ways. Women’s strength is more internalized - better immune systems, stronger resistance to cold and famine, etc because our bodies need to be healthy enough to gestate, give birth to, and breastfeed a baby... Brute strength is the big exception. Men’s strength is more externalized - aimed at protecting, etc.
(I cite all of my sources for my claims about physical dimorphism - men's strengths and women's strengths - in a Tumblr post here: https://uteropolis.tumblr.com/post/139039467450/why-drafting-women-into-war-wouldnt-be)
And if you don’t think that giving birth is one of the biggest strengths out there, then I don’t know what to tell you. Of course a male supremacist would say “well that’s because men’s bodies aren’t built for it.” To which I respond: well the reason we don’t have the brute strength you do is because our bodies aren’t built for it. We’re built for other things - which are arguably more important than what you’re built for. (If there weren’t people capable of giving birth, there’d be no brutely strong people to begin with, because no one would exist.)
So women already had the responsibility to give birth; you want to give them the responsibility to go to war on top of that? That’s inequality. It’s causing a double burden men don’t have to deal with.
There's the fact that the draft is forcible and childbirth is not. However, even if we ignore the fact that there are people out there actively fighting for women to be forced to give birth against their will, answer me this: then what about the men who are drafted but *want* to be drafted? It’s not against their will. Should those men have to go through something in addition to that, against their will, just so that they can experience something against their will, like the other men being drafted? Even if women who give birth, and men who desire to go to war, are not being forced to fulfill their civic duties against their will, they're still fulfilling them, and shouldn't be required to take on the civic duties of other people on top of that. (4 out of 5 women give birth by the way.)
By the way, the reason there was never a draft for women to give birth was because the US government never saw a need for there to be one. I totally wouldn’t put it past the fucked up US government to draft women to give birth if there was a population shortage.
And that would be wrong, if it did happen. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. But if there was a draft for women to give birth I wouldn’t fight for men also to be drafted in the name of “equality” (if we can figure out a way to land on the moon, we can figure out a way to get men to give birth). I’d work to get rid of the whole damn thing altogether.
Likewise for the draft for men to go to war. The solution isn’t to give women a double burden so that they have to deal with men’s civil responsibilities on top of their own. Again, inequality. The goal is to make it so that neither men nor women are chained to the civil duties that they have been tied to for the past couple centuries. Neither men nor women should be drafted to do anything they don't want to do.
However, if people are insistent upon drafting women to go to war in the name of "equality", then I seriously propose that we devise a way for men to become pregnant and give birth, and menstruate, in the name of "equality." I'm not joking. We can figure out how. We figured out a way to land on the moon. That is the *only* way I'll support drafting women to go into the war.
Here's an awesome quote from here:
https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleHudsonWomenCombat.html
"I oppose [Selective Service registration for women] because women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, and women should not be asked to bear even more. There should be parity between men and women in the work of protecting our country and giving it a future. Selective Service registration for women would undo that parity, placing an unjustly heavy burden on women, and making their burden far heavier than that of men[…]
What, at a minimum, must a nation have to survive? It must have protection[…] But protection is not enough for a nation to survive. A protected nation will nevertheless die out in the space of a generation if there is no reproduction. Only through reproduction does a nation have a future[…]
From 1776 onwards, more women have died or been seriously harmed in or incident to childbirth than men have died or been wounded in battle.
For example, in 2012, over 700 US women died in childbirth, with another 52,000 suffering a profound bodily harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure, or aneurysms. In 2012, 310 American soldiers died in Afghanistan, with less than 4,000 wounded. Indeed, the maternal mortality rate in the US is now double what it was 25 years ago."
Do you see that? Over twice as many women died and over 10 times as many women have been wounded in childbirth recently than men in war. Far more women than men have been dying lately during their fulfillment of their traditional civic "blood sacrifices". Yet we expect women to take on men's civic duties, too, on top of that? That is anything but equality.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
If women can enlist and serve in the military, then females SHOULD be enlisted in a draft. Just as a woman who can be a manager at a tech company should be able to work her way up to being CEO. As far as childbirth being a responsibility, then why are women in the workforce if their primary responsibility is to have and raise children? I know one thing... I would take 99% of the female nurses in the United States to join me if our country is at the point of needing to draft for a war, than I would the 18 year old guys that are going to some art college!
Also, nowdays, with people becoming transgender... should they have to enlist in the selective service? If our country is at the point of needing a draft, we are going to need ALL able-bodied citizens to defend our country. We will have enough elderly and disabled people who will not be drafted to maintain the homefront while you and I stand side-by-side to take the fight to our enemy.
I am with you that women should focus on having and raising children, and not add the responsibility of a job, career ambitions or the possibility of having to serve in the military. But women of the past have fought for the right to be able to do all those things, even while trying to carry the responsibility of having and raising children.. so this is where we are today... at the crossroads of women having FULL equality, as far as being able to do ANYTHING a man can do... or else admitting there is a limit to their abilities due to their baby-making abilities.
So which side are you on:
a) Woman can do ANYTHING a man can do, including enlist in the military, or
b) women can NOT do all the things a man can do because of their limits due to their baby-making ability
Your argument about reproducing the next generation... that is a discussion pertaining to marriage and relationships, not a draft that has not happened in over 40 years
Both men and women should be able to have the same rights including the right not to be chained to their civil duty which has been enforced upon them.
In the past, women were forced to give birth in the same way men were forced to be drafted.
Abortion was illegal until the 50s or 60s, which is the same time birth control became a thing. Before that there was no prevention available. Even if you said “just don’t have sex” (despite the fact that consent to the utilization of a person’s body must be continuous)…you know how men can be. Most men want sex. And marriage was considered a sexual contract. Men forcing sex upon their wives wasn't illegal until the 80s. And women were literally financially dependent upon men at the time, and expected to follow their husbands’ orders, so saying "no" wasn't that realistic of an option.
Fortunately, women have since been liberated from the chains of their civil duty. Birth control is now available, abortion is accessible, women have the capability to be financially independent and therefore not trapped in a relationship with any man who is pushy about sex with her. Luckily, nowadays, women have the choice as to whether to fulfill their traditional “civic duty” or not.
The same should happen for men. That would be equality, and progression.
Both men and women should have the choice to fulfill their civic duty, or not. But no, I don't agree with applying men's civic duty also to women. That's just going backwards.
As for the "you and I" part...
This conversation is actually irrelevant to me because the potential for me to be drafted is basically zero assuming we live in a sane society.
I'm 5'0 and 80 pounds, extremely weak (my friends wanted me to punch them as hard as I could, and they laughed because it didn't hurt at all), and have a whopping zero hand-eye coordination, can't tie knots, etc. I'm very booksmart - straight A honor student. But physically I could probably be beat up by a 3rd grader. I had gym teachers ask me to go in for "extra help" because I was almost failing gym.
If I was drafted, that would be a sign that
1. the people doing the draft are literally idiots;
2. we are living in very desperate times that I would be considered most suitable;
Either way, it'd be a sign that the end is near.
Yes, women were locked into motherhood by being limited in their options, until these women fought for their right to vote like men, and hold jobs like men. So, in the process of financially liberating themselves... they also created an environment where they wanted to be seen equal to men. The standard of a woman being just a child-bearer and raiser of children vanquished with this fight for financial independence. Women made the choice to compete with men in the business world... and by doing this, they expressed the statement that "just because we have the ability to bear children does NOT mean it should limit our ability to compete with men in careers previously thought to be 'a man's job" so, the standard was set that child-bearing would not keep woman from being able to do what men can do. Hence why women have joined the military & risen in the ranks to top level generals. So, because of this standard that has been set... women are expected to be able to do the exact same things
Feminism actually hasn't always been seen as striving for "equality" or being "equal" to men." The term in the 60s, 70s, etc was women's "Liberation." (Personally I believe in "equity".)
Women wanted to be liberated from the chains they were stuck in.
Instead of sticking themselves into new chains (the ones men have), we should help men free themselves from their (as in, men's) chains.
That would achieve liberation for everyone, and therefore equality.
"A gender-equal society would be one where the word 'gender' does not exist: where everyone can be themselves." --- Gloria Steinem (on of the top Women's rights activists in the 1970's)
In order for the word "gender" to not exist, it means that ALL people are available to defend their country when the need arises!
Well one feminist does not speak for everyone.
I personally think the notion of gender "not existing" is a very dumb one.
Anyway...
"In order for the word "gender" to not exist, it means that ALL people are available to defend their country when the need arises!"
In order for the word "gender" to not exist, it means that ALL people are available to give birth when the need arises!
Regarding the equality thing... Feminism is not a monolith.
there have been entire sections of feminism which specifically state that women and men are different and not equal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism
Personally I think that 2 things can be equal yet different. 2+3=5 and 4+1=5 are equal but different. Similarly I believe that men and women can be different, and even treated differently, yet still be equal.
But one can't be expected to die for their country and the other not to. And you can't get rid of the draft just because we haven't used it lately. GenX is the first generation that didn't have a draft in its time period since WWI. Not having a war every twenty years or so is a new thing, so we can't just assume it's never gonna happen again. And if something happens where the fate of EVERYONE in the country is at stake, what are we gonna do, just give up because some people don't believe in the draft. We have to be realistic.
My fear with woman being drafted is what that experience would do to them afterwards. What effects would PTSD have on pregnancy and child birth afterwards esp. on a mass scale? I would imagine it would cause more Post-partum issues and on a more massive scale. More people who aren't able to raise children... it had a very negative effect on the fathers of pass generations... can kids afford to lose both parents? What effect would that have on women being that child birth is what we are made for? What effect would it have on marriages? On children? Less people would have anything to fight for or to come back to because they are out there fighting too and you have no way to know what happened to them or who they will be afterwards and less people to be able to help you when you get back because they are dealing with the same stuff. Maybe only take people partnered up before hand and have them pick who would take on the draft responsibilities? I don't know, it's all stuff we should think about. I understand the need for equality but too many are using it as a way to even steven everything... using it as "if I have to, they should to too" without thinking of long-term issues and how they'd effect society as a whole. I'm not saying I'm against anything but I would like studies to happen to test long term issues before this is passed. We also have to be able to figure out how to take care of these peoples children as well while they are gone... higher taxes? The children they have would become more of our responsibility as a society during and after since so many would be raised without parents either physically during or mentally afterwards. I just think everything needs to be ironed out, it's probably do-able but let's make this part of the discussion.
And another issue is that they'd be sending 18-35 year old women, which is right at peak fertility. After age 35 is when fertility goes downhill, birth defects go up, etc.
Actually it's 18-25. That's the age range for men.