ProQuest
WOMEN SHOULD BE DRAFTED; [THIRD Edition]
CATHY YOUNG. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Feb 17, 2003. pg. A.13
Abstract (Document Summary)
THE PROSPECT OF WAR WITH IRAQ HAS SPARKED A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
BRINGING BACK MILITARY CONSCRIPTION. SO FAR, SUCH A MOVE SEEMS UNLIKELY; THE
ONLY CALLS FOR A REINSTATEMENT OF THE DRAFT HAVE COME FROM WAR OPPONENTS
SUCH AS REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL, DEMOCRAT OF NEW YORK, WHO ARGUES
THAT WAR REQUIRES "SHARED SACRIFICE" (AND BELIEVES THAT IF A DRAFT WERE IN
PLACE, OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MORE RELUCTANT TO GO TO WAR). BUT THE
DEBATE ABOUT THE DRAFT RAISES A LONG-OVERDUE QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?
Several young people in Massachusetts have recently confronted this issue head-on. In January, 18year-old Samuel Schwartz of Ipswich, aided by his father, civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, filed a
lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston challenging all-male Selective Service registration as
unconstitutional. He has been joined by his 17-year-old sister and two male friends.
Curiously, the debate about women in combat has been framed primarily as a debate about women's
rights. Feminists who champion women in the military generally talk about giving women the choice to
serve in combat, and talk about career opportunities that servicewomen are denied because of the
combat exclusion. Men - those who volunteer for service under the present system, and possibly all
military-age men if a draft is reinstated - can be required to fight and risk their lives. A young man who
does not register for Selective Service theoretically risks prosecution, and forgoes a chance for a
student loan.
Full Text (750 words)
Copyright Boston Globe Newspaper Feb 17, 2003
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
CATHY YOUNG
THE PROSPECT OF WAR WITH IRAQ HAS SPARKED A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
BRINGING BACK MILITARY CONSCRIPTION. SO FAR, SUCH A MOVE SEEMS UNLIKELY; THE
ONLY CALLS FOR A REINSTATEMENT OF THE DRAFT HAVE COME FROM WAR OPPONENTS
SUCH AS REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL, DEMOCRAT OF NEW YORK, WHO ARGUES
THAT WAR REQUIRES "SHARED SACRIFICE" (AND BELIEVES THAT IF A DRAFT WERE IN
PLACE, OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MORE RELUCTANT TO GO TO WAR). BUT THE
DEBATE ABOUT THE DRAFT RAISES A LONG-OVERDUE QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?
Several young people in Massachusetts have recently confronted this issue head-on. In January, 18year-old Samuel Schwartz of Ipswich, aided by his father, civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, filed a
lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston challenging all-male Selective Service registration as
unconstitutional. He has been joined by his 17-year-old sister and two male friends.
All-male draft registration is an issue that has received little attention - surprising since it is the only
instance in which federal law explicitly treats men and women differently. In 1981, the year after
mandatory selective service registration for males was reinstated, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the purpose of the draft was to send soldiers into
combat, from which women were barred.
In 2003, the legal and cultural landscape is very different. There are far more women in military ranks,
doing a far wider variety of jobs - including some combat-related ones. In the 1990 Gulf War, women
were closer to the front lines than ever before, and were among the casualties of war. Today, women
can pilot combat aircraft, serve on combat ships, and command battalions in combat areas. They are
still barred, however, from direct engagement with enemy forces on the ground.
Curiously, the debate about women in combat has been framed primarily as a debate about women's
rights. Feminists who champion women in the military generally talk about giving women the choice to
serve in combat, and talk about career opportunities that servicewomen are denied because of the
combat exclusion. Men - those who volunteer for service under the present system, and possibly all
military-age men if a draft is reinstated - can be required to fight and risk their lives. A young man who
does not register for Selective Service theoretically risks prosecution, and forgoes a chance for a
student loan.
This paradox has led men's advocates such as author Warren Farrell to charge that feminism seems
to give women options without obligations. Male-only draft registration, he argues, is a symbol of the
longstanding attitude that men's lives are more "disposable" and that women must be protected from
harm.
Indeed, some of the opposition to drafting women and putting them on the front lines is explicitly rooted
in this chivalrous mentality. In the book "The Kinder, Gentler Military," Stephanie Gutmann warns
against trying to override the "natural law" that makes men want to protect women and makes
societies reluctant to send women to die on the battlefield. Meanwhile, contemporary feminist dogma,
fixated on male violence against women, largely avoids confronting the fact that especially in the West,
patriarchy has involved not only women's oppression but women's protection.
Those feminists who have honestly confronted this issue have a point when they argue that chivalry is
infantilizing. It's no accident that the claim for special protection lumps women with children. In a
culture that has rejected the belief that "natural law" relegates women to subordination in marriage and
exclusion from public life, public policy rooted in the notion that women's lives are more precious than
men's is unconscionable.
But the combat exclusion is also rooted in practical considerations. Some leading proponents of
women's full integration into the armed services, such as retired Air Force Major General Jeanne
Holm, remain skeptical about putting women into physical combat - primarily because it requires levels
of physical prowess most women don't have. Even the weight of the equipment soldiers in ground
combat must carry poses a problem for women.
Most military service, however, does not involve direct engagement with the enemy. In Israel, women
are currently drafted but serve in noncombat positions. It should be up to the military, based on the
needs of national defense, to decide in what capacity women can be best employed. In the meantime,
the courts should reject male-only draft registration as incompatible with equal citizenship.