i) There's a debate brewing about whether women should be required to register for the draft. I think some conservatives are taking an understandable, but morally untenable position on this issue.
I oppose women in combat. For that matter, I oppose the coed military.
But I also oppose letting identity politicians get away with conferring both equal rights and special rights or super rights on their protected classes.
ii) Presumably, most conservatives don't believe in banning women from the military in toto. We don't object to women as doctors, nurses, tech support, or military intelligence (to cite a few examples) At least I don't.
iii) The line is often drawn in reference to "combat". But that's ambiguous. I think "women in combat" is often used as a synonym for women in Spec Ops. The elite fighting units.
In one sense, that's a clear-cut demarcation. But most soldiers are potential combatants. Most draftees in WWII and Vietnam weren't Spec Ops.
To take another comparison, if a woman is a sailor whose destroyer is embroiled in a naval battle, isn't everyone on board, including the cooks, combatants in that situation?
iv) It's difficult to untangle female combatants from the coed military. To be consistent, you have to challenge the coed military. Otherwise, it is arbitrary, both in principle and practice, to draw the line with "women in combat".
v) Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Marine veteran, has introduced a bill requiring women, just like men, to register for the draft. That's not because he actually supports the policy. Rather, it's a wedge tactic.
Are Democrat lawmakers, and Democrat voters, really seriously about equal rights for women? This is an attempt to call their bluff.
Women are a key voting block in the Democrat coalition. But will they balk at draft registration? Will this split a key voting block?
Female Democrats may love the idea of equality, but if they actually have skin in the game, will they blink? Will they backpedal? It's designed to create a dilemma for feministic identity politics. Make them admit that men and women are physically and psychologically different in ways that make women unsuitable for certain occupations, and vice versa.
Predictably, some conservatives have recoiled at this tactic. However, there's a problem with that reaction. Conservatives often complain that Republic politicians fight with one hand tied behind their back. Democrat politicians can say whatever they like, while Republicans walk on egg shells.
But when Republicans like Hunter fight with both hands, some conservatives say, "No! No! You must retie one hand behind your back!"
I agree with Hunter's approach. Liberals make headway in part because they don't have skin in the game. The ruling class makes the underclass bear the brunt of liberal policies. The ruling class doesn't suffer the consequences of its own oppressive policies.
We need to make Democrat politicians and their constituents pay a political price for their initiatives. Are Democrat politicians prepared to alienate a key voting block?
vi) But there's more at issue than tactics. There's a point of principle.
It is unjust for women to have equal access to all the plume positions in the military while men take all the risks. It is unjust for women to assume command positions while men assume all the risks. Where female officers can order men into battle, but avoid action themselves. Conservative mustn't dishonor our men in uniform by defending that kind of egregious double standard. That betrays our men.
Likewise, it's a euphemistic lie to call someone a soldier who isn't even potentially a combatant. If women are exempt from combat units, then they should be excluded from any soldierly position. If they aren't combatants even in principle, then they aren't real soldiers.
vii) In addition, there's a difference between head knowledge and know-how. You can graduate first in your class from Annapolis or West Point, but that's no substitute for hands-on experience. Not only is experience on the battlefield an important supplement and complement to a formal military education, but it has a winnowing effect. The only way of finding out who's a natural leader, who has the adaptive talent and native tactical sense, is to put the aspirant in a situation that will test their mettle.
You can't seriously have women generals and admirals who have no combat experience. Their competence has never been put to the test where it counts.
The choice is either to allow women in combat or disallow women as officers. Do one or the other.
viii) Furthermore, shared risk is essential to respect. Solders respect commanders who don't order a subordinate to do anything the commander won't do.
ix) Finally, this isn't just my armchair analysis. See how some real soldiers weigh in:
Sorry rainmaker, but here is where i disagree with you. IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.
I believe the question was (paraphrased) "Since they can fill combat roles, should they be required to register for the draft?" It only makes sense that the answer to this question be yes. Now, if the question was "Do you think women should be in combat roles?" then I might expect some differing answers, but that wasn't the question. If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.
It is discrimination. And that's not always a bad thing.So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting? That sounds like how you are saying it.
Now you know how I feel when I see men screaming at the top of their lungs about how they feel women should have to register for the selective service too.While i feel the same way when i see people scream that we 'need to treat women equal, but not equal'. I have and always will say, IF they want equality, then that should also include RESPONSIBILITY. Part of that responsibility is the signing up for selective service. Part of the 'equality' that goes with that is being in combat arms. If they don't want combat arms, then they don't need to worry about selective service.
BUT since they Do seem to want to be in the combat arms orgs, then they bloody well should be required to sign up.
Put yourself in this situation: you have a daughter in her mid 20's. She's married, and has two children. All of a sudden, your daughter's number comes up. She's drafted, handed a rifle, and is sent into combat half way across the world... all while your son in law is living large in the comfort of that three bedroom house in the suburbs. While your daughter is doing the fighting.I see that as no different from 'your son is married and has 2 kids, and your son has to go off and fight a war which he may not come back from'. Or are you saying men's lives are not as important as women's lives?
Really, do things HAVE to be equal? Whatever happened to feeling that, as men, we have responsibilities... namely, the ones that we're more physically and emotionally equipped to handle, so that women won't have to?I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: too many men are hiding behind feminism, because they feel that feminism frees them from their responsibilities as men. Feminism has men handing their balls over to women.
So what 'responsibilities' are exclusively men?