@suzy100 - don’t want to derail this, but hasn’t the unequal pay issue been debunked?
I don’t think the argument that it is unconstitutional to require men to register for the draft, but not women, will hold up. It seems to me that the argument that it is unconstitutional would likely be based on the equal protection clause. However, I don’t believe that gender is explicitly addressed in the Constitution anywhere. An argument could be made that gender is in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. This would hold up better had it not been for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. The fact that there was a proposed amendment to add equality in terms of gender to the Constitution, but it failed to be ratified, is a fairly strong argument that equal protection does not cover the genders, and that the states wanted it that way.
No.
Job type explains some of the difference in pay between men and women, but not all of it.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/unexplained-wage-gap/
https://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap
Some of these comments about how unable women are makes me chuckle considering I (and others) were in the military back in the 80s and somehow managed to both do our jobs and survive - even providing effective leadership at times. I guess we didn’t realize how “unable” we were - nor did the men serving with or under us considering most were good friends/colleagues.
Count me in the group that feels it’s about time females are now included in the draft if we’re going to have one.
FWIW, I’m also in the majority of military folks who want to keep the services all volunteer. (At least it was the vast majority when those were my peer group.) I know just as many young lads who don’t care to go into the military as young lasses and those who don’t want to be there will be more of a liability than an asset IMO.
@QuantMech. You are very much mistaken. The 14th Amendment specifies that all “Persons” are entitled to equal protection. There’s now a long line of cases going back to the 1970’s which address gender discrimination under the 14th Amendment.
You are right that it doesn’t address gender. But no one has ever contended that females are not persons. The only legal issue has been the appropriate legal test and standards to apply. So that’s what the courts were wrestling with back when the Supreme Court was making those rulings on the cases RBG was arguing in the movie “On the Basis of Sex”. Spoiler alert if you didn’t see the movie: she won (though not quite the way the movie portrayed).
One thing that people don’t mention about the registration of young men is that families who can afford to be full pay and not file for FAFSA sometimes don’t register their sons. I know several people in this category. All 4 of my boys registered and I would have registered D had the law required. The downside of not registering when you are required to is that it is actually a crime. My friend’s son was unable to apply for government employment after college because he could not truthfully say that he had registered with selective service. You are required to register (if male, currently) between 18 and 26 and getting it retroactively is a very difficult process, I have read.
Although my sons registered, I also signed the paperwork through their school to preclude military recruiters from contacting them once they turned 16. I didn’t want any of them to be swayed by fancy videos or signing bonuses since I don’t see any of my kids as being suitable for the military life. Actually, my D probably has the best ability to be in the military, but she wouldn’t ever even go shooting with the boys at the target range.
That said, my aunt was a WAC in WWII. When the war ended, she was a sgt. and was offered a commission to stay in. She mustered out, but always regretted it and wondered what her career might have been had she stayed in. I believe that women have every right to serve and I pray that the draft never comes back and the military remains all volunteer.
My H was in what I think was the last birth year to actually get draft numbers. The draft was suspended shortly before he turned 18. A few years ago, I found a web site that had the proposed draft numbers for that year listed. I think his was like 41, so he would have been drafted. His dad, a WWII vet and official in a couple of veteran’s groups, took him aside when he turned 17 and gave him a bank book. He told him this was his “Canada” money because he wouldn’t have his son in Viet Nam. Luckily, it never came to that.
Well, I for one would like to abolish the draft completely. However, I agree that if one is in place women should also be required to register.
@Leigh22 -
There actually is no draft and there hasn’t been since 1973. The registration is just in case one has to be instituted. Several years ago, now former Rep. Charles Rangel of NY tried to reinstate the draft and include women. His rationale was that the military is primarily made up of minorities and POC and a draft would make the military fairer and more egalitarian. He makes a good point, in that the military offers opportunities that many middle class and wealthier families don’t have to rely on in order to have their children make it into the middle class. For instance, I can afford to put my kids through SUNY schools and not have them enlist in order to get GI Bill benefits. Other families may not have that option and see the military as a way to get ahead. Back in the day, my uncle, a WWII vet, used the GI Bill to become a teacher and make a nice life for his family. My FIL used his benefits to buy the home that my MIL still lives in.
I have 4 sons. Out of all of them, they have ONE friend who is planning on being career military (USAF) and two others who did National Guard stints. Two other friends washed out of basic training.
@tpike12, also don’t want to derail, but the wage gap is alive and well. I was reading the annual survey yesterday by the Association of Corporate Counsel on wages for in-house counsel. Here is a snippet of the report:
"Women earn less than men, but gender compensation gap among new graduates is smaller than in previous cohorts. The compensation gap between men and women at the GC level is significant, with males earning a median of $270,000 in total compensation compared with $210,000 for females, despite having similar experience levels overall and in their current position. The gender compensation gap shrinks for GCs who received a degree after 2009, indicating more parity for newer lawyers. For example, the disparity in median compensation among GCs who received a law degree after 2015 is $35,500 — less than half of the gap found among GCs who received a law degree before the year
The median base salary for entry level in-house legal counsel (those in a position for one year or less) is $110,000 for females and $120,000 for males; women make 91 percent of what men earn. In terms of additional compensation, median performance-based bonuses are $10,319 for women and $13,000 for men, which means that male in-house lawyers entering the in-house field between 2017 and 2018 report 26 percent more in bonus than their female colleagues report."
calmom, while I certainly respect your argument about “persons,” I think that the states’ lack of willingness to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment throws a monkey wrench into the argument that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment regardless of gender. When the amendment was under active discussion, there were some voices stating that it was unnecessary, because the Constitution already guaranteed equal protection to men and women. However, in my recollection there were many more voices stating that the ERA was undesirable. Among the reasons explicitly given for that view: it would make women subject to the draft.
Vox populi.
Given the current make-up of the Supreme Court, I think it is at least doubtful how the Court will decide. This seems like a “limited penumbra” Court to me, for the most part.
Incidentally, I am female, for those in the discussion who do not know. I had very strongly hoped that the ERA would be ratified. But it wasn’t. I don’t recall whether other proposed amendments had a deadline for ratification by the states. I have thought not. But this one did.
Is it okay for me to say, “I do not like beer?”
Penumbras are irrelevant. The established test for the constitutionality of gender based laws is intermediate scrutiny ( that is, between strict scrutiny, as in racial cases, and merely rational scrutiny, in other cases). For a gender based distinction to survive, it must have a substantial relationship to an important government objective. As the original objective for the gender distinction for the draft(to provide men for combat) has now changed to a broader one (to provide persons eligible for combat), the gender distinction now fails the intermediate scrutiny test. The Texas judge was on solid ground legally.
@QuantMech: Wow! Your commentary sounds like an argument to revoke a woman’s right to vote, sign contracts, own property, etc. Review your line of thought to understand its implications.
Those GI benefits, ROTC and HPSP scholarships are still pretty awesome. Free money for college and grad schools in return for time. There is no time owed when using GI Bill benefits.
My husband and his brother both came out of medical school with zero debt because of HPSP scholarships, and through the Post 9-11 GI Bill Benefits, my husband was able to transfer the equivalent of four years of instate tuition room and board to our kids (spread out between the three of them, but essentially a full four year scholarship for one kid).
Perhaps because we live in the DC area, we know quite a few people who have at least one kid who has taken ROTC and HPSP scholarships, and a few who have graduated from one of the academies.
At my kids’ high school graduation, they had those headed to the military stand. I’d guess it was about 20% of the class with some going to ROTC, one to Naval Academy, and the rest just joining up. The school was over 90% white.
All the students I know who have gone to the academies or joined ROTC are white.
^ there’s a difference between the college kids/ROTC and the enlisted soldiers in terms of racial/socio economic make up.
In any case the draft today had nothing’s to do with enlisting and is about the opposite.
The “draft” as is today should just be called something else - Civic registration (with voter’s registration part of it). There is no training as part of the registration, nothing military. Today’s army doesn’t need untrained ‘cannon fodder’, not does it need untrained 18 year olds (boys or girls).
The USMA, USNA, and USAFA students are 63% white.
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=military+academy&s=all&id=197036#enrolmt
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=naval+academy&s=all&id=164155#enrolmt
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=air+force+academy&s=all&id=128328#enrolmt
This is somewhat higher than the 56.5% of all undergraduates who are white.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_306.10.asp?current=yes
Funny coincidence - I just finished reading this thread and then went out to get my mail and what should I find but a letter from the Selective Service System addressed to S19. He and dh did fill out FAFSA in January, so I suppose he registered then.
While I hope that our country never sees a draft again in my lifetime, I do feel that if males are required to register, then women should too. I know plenty of women in the military and have and currently sponsor females who attend one of the service academies (we live nearby and provide a “home away from home” for them). Our first is currently finishing up flight school. They are every bit as capable as men to serve.
I would expect this court to be strongly against the Texas decision. I will be rather surprised if it goes up that far and they don’t overturn the Texas judge, but we’ll see.
Most non lawyers don’t believe this, but most federal judges do try to follow the established legal precedents and rules in applying constitutional standards to cases, rather than their own political biases. That is how a 70 year old white male conservative catholic republican judge in Texas could rule this way. He may very well not like or want women to be registered, but he does understand the legal rule to apply. The system does work, sometimes.
@MYOS1634 wrote:" there’s a difference between the college kids/ROTC and the enlisted soldiers in terms of racial/socio economic make up."
Just want to state that, the specific intent of the Post 9-11 GI Bill is to offer a free pathway to a college (or vo/tech) education for enlisted personnel. It offers up to 100% of instate tuition and fees for colleges and training, plus money towards books and a housing allowance. Specifics vary depending on how much active duty time the member has had. Most officers already have a degree, but can use the benefit towards another degree or other training. And any member (enlisted or officer) can gift all or part of those benefits to a spouse or other family member.
I’m posting that to point out to casual readers that there is a way to have the military fund college or vo/tech training other than going the ROTC or academy route. It isn’t for everyone, but it is a benefit for having served on active duty on or after 9-11.
I don’t intend to hijack the thread.