Home > Issues > The Military > Gender Discrimination in the U.S. Draft
	Empowering Men: fighting feminist lies
Gender Discrimination in the U.S. Draft Copyright David W. Behrens 2004

 

To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy against
intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than a
Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that military
conscription will again be implemented during the months following the
2004 Presidential Election. The nature of this struggle renders
irrelevant the person or party who wins the election.

With very rare exceptions, every male residing in the United States 18 to
26 years of age is required by the Military Selective Service Act to
register with the Selective Service System, and thereby subject himself
to the possibility of involuntary military service. Yet, with the ongoing
War on Islamic Terrorism, the prosecution of which has required the
deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel, and
stretched the National Guard and Reserve to its limit, absolutely no
female in the U.S. is required to register. This clear fact of gender
discrimination has not been focused upon in public discussions because an
active draft has not been in effect since 1973.

The United States Selective Service System offers on its Website a short
history of the draft with respect to women. The primary reason given for
non-registration of women is a Supreme Court decision, Rostker v.
Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Simply stated, it says that since all men
registered with the Selective Service are considered combat replacements,
and since Congress forbids women to go into combat, women should not be
registered. Of course, this reasoning is absolutely absurd, since it
presupposes that absolutely every male called for involuntary military
service will be used exclusively for combat, and conversely that
absolutely no male called will be used for the approximately 90% of
military jobs which are non-combat related.

Two identical pieces of legislation before the U.S. Congress, H.R.163 and
S.89, referred to as Universal National Service Act of 2003, amend the
Military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of females.
Unless exempted, they obligate the performance of a two-year period of
national service either in the armed forces or in a civilian capacity
that "promotes the national defense," for all United States residents,
male and female, between 18 and 26 years of age.

Further perusal of this proposal reveals Section 5(d), which authorizes the President "to apply
different classification standards for fitness for military service and
fitness for civilian service." This Section clearly permits the President
to perpetuate the current double standard and pander to the female voting
majority. Because of a Congressional rule exempting females, only males
will be placed involuntarily into direct ground combat. Females, although
subject to national service, will be spared the dirt and danger that is
inherent in facing our country's enemies. Section 5(d) guarantees that
virtually all females will return whole and well to enjoy equal civil
rights and equal veteran benefits, while those of their male peers who do
return will have had a vastly different experience discharging their
'male-only' civil responsibilities.

Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of continuing
gender discrimination:

1. Do equal civil rights for females obligate females to equal civil
   responsibilities? Should the absence of female civil responsibilities
   vis-à-vis military service commensurately diminish female civil rights?
   In light of the fact that only males are required by Federal law to serve
   involuntarily in direct ground combat for up to six years of their lives,
   and to risk their very existence in that service, to what quantum degree
   should females' civil rights be diminished? Why is the pretext of a
   logically flawed Supreme Court decision, and continuing legislative
   gender discrimination, allowed to exempt the female majority of the
   population from any possibility of involuntary direct ground combat? .

2. Should female members of the Legislative and Executive branches of
   government be permitted to vote for war, i.e. to place only males into
   involuntary direct ground combat, while they and their daughters enjoy
   gender exemption from such civil responsibility?

3. Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funding be used for
   all school-based activities, including athletics, in schools that receive
   any federal funding. Many schools have had to abandon male team sports
   that earn revenue in excess of their costs and which aid in the
   preparation of males for the teamwork and organization of military
   service, in order to provide gender-equal funding for female sports which
   perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no imperative for females to
   utilize the skills and strengths learned on the athletic field and in the
   classroom for the military defense of their country. Should Title IX
   continue?

4. Finally, to address those arguments, based on strength and speed,
   against placing females involuntarily into direct ground combat.
   Gender-norming has been used to affirmatively place females ahead of
   males into civilian positions requiring physical strength and speed, such
   as firefighters, police, smoke jumpers, and cadets in service academies.
   Why not use these same gender-normed standards, which are significantly
   less rigorous than those minimums required of males for the same
   occupations, to affirmatively qualify females for involuntary direct
   ground combat? Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow to
   perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be affirmatively
   placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar
   strength and speed.

David W. Behrens
10 High Point Terrace
Sussex, NJ 07461
Home Telephone: 973-875-9793
Cell Phone: 973-903-6551

 

See also:

• Feminazi UN High Commissioner for Human Rights proves that Pinochet must have been a great man!

• "HOW CAN SHE SLAP?" Transcript: English Subtitles of Video of Several Men Assaulting One Man for Defending Himself Against a Female Aggressor on Indian Television

• Expulsion of Jan Logie from Parliament

• Discrimination is always Negative

• Chen/Palmer Doesn't Understand Human Rights

• Anti-Male Discrimination in the Workplace

• Green MP Jan Logie Proves that Women's Suffrage Should Be Repealed.

• Jan Logie: Man-Hating as a Religion

• Abolish the Fascist Human Rights Commission!

• Lying Logie Cons Parliament Into Convicting Innocent Men.

• Anti-Male Discrimination in a Human Rights Textbook

• Complaint to Human Rights Committee

• Sexual Violence Interview of Jan Logie by Q+A (Transcript)

• Letting Men Off the Feminists' Meat-Hooks

• Comments on the case Marshall v Bermuda

 

Home Issues Links FAQ Book Quotes Lawyers Email us ! SiteMap

Webmaster Peter Douglas Zohrab Latest Update 25 April 2022

Top