Draft Girls only, for the sake of EQUALITY

Drafting women only is a terrifically idiotic idea, and I'm assuming it was made mostly in jest. Nevertheless, I'm going to use this for an insanely long and disorganized rant about why women should indeed be eligible for the draft right along with men.

For it should be noted that it's absolutely wrong that women should be completely exempt from the draft, as they have been in the past, and as they currently are in all the other countries that still practice conscription, excepting Israel. I do know that a few of the European countries that still practice it are considering conscripting women also (I believe Norway is planning on voting on this in a few months.) And that seems appropriate, especially in those countries (like most of Europe) where women now have equal rights.

In the off chance that there is ever another draft in the United States, I'm fairly confident that women would also be drafted. Which only seems fair.

After all, it seems kind of unfair to suggest that a man "owes" that service to his country but a women does not (and yes, I realize there are still prejudices against women, as there are against men, but few of them are actually governmentally endorsed.) They (supporters of the draft) often make the argument that the draft increases feelings of equality among the classes - that they're forced to associate with those they might not otherwise associate with and view themselves as equals - well, by that note, I believe that including women in the draft would help to increase gender equality, in addition to racial and class equality.

It also seems very unfair to me that women in places where peacetime conscription is the norm should be able to graduate from high school and continue on with their lives while their male counterparts are forced to serve their country for several months/years. (And you may say, "well, women have babies and that's far harder than any peacetime conscription" - but I'm not so sure that those countries with conscription also have laws requiring women to have babies, or laws punishing those who do not - as those males who refuse to be conscripted are punished. Which kind of nullifies that point. And I don't think that the societal inequalities (not governmental) that exist justify men having to give up that portion of their lives while women do not. It's also my opinion that male-only conscription, to some extent, only serves to perpetuate inequalities between the genders.)

Of course, many European countries have been giving up conscription in recent years (The Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, etc.) and that seems like the best course of all. I recently read an article about how the practice of conscription is coming to an end in Europe, and how in other than a select few nations (Switzerland and Sweden) that conscription will very likely be eliminated throughout the continent within a few decades (and even Sweden has been talking about ridding itself of peacetime conscription, and including women in the draft in times of war.) (Though it should be noted that the countries' reasons for stopping the practice were generally practical and economical, rather than moral. And they of course reserve the right to re-implement it at any point, should they feel the need arise.) But I can't help but think that a real end to conscription would be a great forward for civilization. (But I don't see it happening in the near future.)

Now for the more controversial part of my opinion - I believe that the idea of a (military) draft is completely antithetical to a free society. Yes, people should be grateful to their country, yes people should be willing to do service - but there are far more ways to do that than going to war. The idea that the government owns the bodies of its citizens (and lets face it, that's the principle upon which the military draft operates) is extremely dangerous, and one that is completely contradictory to the values America supposedly stands for. When you force a portion of your adult population into doing something (and I'm not talking about paying taxes, or doing jury duty, which are relatively easy, and safe, and short-lived) as relatively "big", and dangerous as going to war (where most of your freedom of movement and even speech is severely limited, and where you are forced to obey a "superior" or be at risk of imprisonment or even death) - you suddenly lose much of your claim to being a "free nation." For in that case at least a portion of your population is not at all free (and not for committing any crime, other than the crime of being born male at a certain time.)

Now please let it be known, I am extremely grateful for those who have served, and those who are brave enough to serve now, and realize that the freedoms we do have are the result of those who have fought in some of the wars our country have participated in - but I think the choice of whether or not to fight should be left up to the individual. I do believe that even in today's "sense of entitlement" day and age that if a true need for a large army ever arose (such as existed during the second World War) that you'd have more than enough people volunteering without the need for force (yes, I realize there was a draft during the two World Wars, but I also believe that it wasn't really necessary - though of course it would be impossible to prove, or disprove, such a theory.)

And for all the arguments that conscription "keeps the leaders in check" and "prevents a country from going and staying in war against the people's will" - I only point to Vietnam.

With all that said (and this is going to be utterly hypocritical of me) - if we're completely unwilling to give up the idea of a draft, I'm far less opposed to the idea of a draft that involves universal mandatory national service - that is, a system that applies to all people of a certain age, and which gives conscripts a choice between military and other forms of service, in both wartime and peacetime. It still isn't right, in my opinion, but it's far better an alternative than the current system, which is about the worst possible way to handle conscription. I think such a system would meet with much less resistance (after people got used to it, at least) than the current one, since it wouldn't be "luck of the draw", and both genders would have to serve, and they would have a choice in what area to serve in. It would simply seem far less "hard" and unfair and "wrong". And if my hypothetical system came to be viewed as a standard thing for all high school graduates, just as normal and necessary as going to high school (as I think it would be within a short period of time if it was applied universally, to both genders) I don't think it would be such a bad thing, and not so contradictory to ideas of freedom as the current system is. It would simply be a delay of a year (or so) from going to college or starting a career, and there would not be the risk of being forced to go to war, if they choose to enter an area other than the military.

I know in Germany, for example, where conscription is "universal" (that is, for males only, since, I guess, women "don't count") and a part of their constitution, at least 50% of the conscripts sign up as "conscientious objectors" (which I hear is very easy to do, and almost everyone who applies is accepted,) and thus do alternative service, such as working in hospitals. And the rest go into the military (though only for training and in-country service. I believe, though I'm not certain, that most European countries that still have conscription have a law that conscripts will not be sent into any war that the country's military may currently be involved in, unless the conscript chooses to be, or unless there is a very direct threat to the country (like the country being invaded.))

On a somewhat interesting note, there are so many conscientious objectors in the country that the government has even stated that one of the main deterrents to getting rid of conscription is that they would not be able to pay people to fill those health care jobs that conscientious objectors currently fill (which is kind of a sad statement on how little conscripts get paid compared to what would actually have to be paid to entice people to take the jobs without force.)

(And if a German person is reading this board and has issues with something I wrote, please correct me. I have done quite a bit of research into the matter of conscription, but I've had very little contact with those in countries where it is still employed, so I freely admit that I may be getting some of my facts wrong.)

If we here in America are not going to get rid of the draft completely (though that would be highly preferable) the German system (assuming we amend it to include women) at least seems much fairer and less biased than the current draft, which is random, and where it is very difficult to obtain conscientious objector status. And even if you're against women in the military, you should be able to admit that women would be just as capable as men as filling other jobs, such as health care services. And I do believe, in this case, that fairness is of the utmost importance - if citizens really do have an "obligation to their nation", and if the country sees fit to enforce that, then everyone (within a certain age group,) regardless of gender, should be forced to do some sort of service, no matter whether we're in a time of war or not. Mind you, I'd prefer such a system to never exist in America, but it is a far better alternative to the current one. Because if every high school graduate was required to choose between military and national service, I believe a fair amount would choose military service (and more than enough to fill the army's needs) - but at least they would have the choice, rather than being forced to go overseas and kill in the chance that you are called up and aren't able to defend their position as a conscientious objector well enough before the draft board.

And we would still always have a trained army ready to go, should the need arise - one that had actually agreed to accept the risks of military service.

And if you believe that it would be too big a change for such a thing to be implemented both in peacetime and wartime, then it should at least become the new standard for the wartime draft - that is, if congress declares war then everyone is drafted (with, of course, exemptions for those with families/disabilities/etc.) and given a choice between various types of service.

In either case (wartime, or wartime and peacetime,) this would of course apply to both males and females. I do believe that it would make people less apathetic and more invested in their country/patriotic (but then you have the question of whether that's any of the government's business, to which I say I don't know. Is it really "increasing their investment in the country" or is it brainwashing, and does it make people less likely to express their dissent should they feel the government is going in the wrong direction?) And I'm not entirely sure that greater "pride in one's nation"/patriotism/nationalism should be the ultimate goals of a civilized person.

But once again, universal national service is only a way to improve on the current sexist and otherwise highly flawed system of random, male-only conscription. If we insist on forcing our young folk to perform service, it should be for everyone, regardless of gender - women owe it to their country just as much as men, and it's degrading to both genders to suggest otherwise (and no, I'm not talking about places like the Middle East and Africa, where females have very few rights - there I can better understand a system of male-only conscription - it is places such as Germany (which currently has a female president) and Switzerland and Austria and Scandinavia where I can not justify its continued existence as a gender-exclusive system.) Of course, no conscription at all would be by far the best alternative, but it doesn't seem like we're quite at that point in society yet.

And I realize that this is just a pipe dream, and that it's almost completely impossible that such a system would ever be applied in America, and that we'll just stick with our current system out of "tradition", even if it is completely unfair. If a draft is going to exist at all, the only way it can be fair is if everyone is subject to it, and if they are given a choice. (And now I'm just repeating myself.)

-

With that said, I believe that the goal of any government should be peace, and peacetime military conscription seems to oppose that. To quote Einstein:

You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time.

-

I'm sort of rambling here, and contradicting myself, and I apologize. As you can probably see, I'm rather conflicted on the matter myself (no, let me rephrase that, I'm conflicted on the matter of national service - I unequivocally believe that forceful military service is absolutely wrong, and unjust. I'm also totally "unconflicted" about the opinion that any first-world country that insists on keeping some sort of system of conscription should also include females. And that any first-world nation that does not do that is committing a great injustice.)

Call me an unpatriotic rotten Commie rat, but that's my opinion on the matter. I know many will disagree with me, and I guess that's all right. (Sort of.)

-

An invisible and invincible (and completely nutritionless) cookie to anyone who read this entire post. Another (identical) cookie to anyone who actually agrees with half the stuff I wrote.

"Or perhaps it's not overrated"

reply share

add reply

formatting help