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:
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? .
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?
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?
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