How Come Men Have to Register
for The Military Draft and Women Don't?
A look at gender roles, citizenship, and the distorted
equality paradigm propagated by ideological feminism.
As reported by
RICH ZUBATY
from a small island in the
SOUTH PACIFIC
I'm sorry I can't be with you at the 1998 American Men's Studies
Association conference to lead a discussion about what I consider
to be the most egregious omission of modern feminism -- registering
women for the military draft. Debates about "glass ceilings" and
"sexual harassment" are trivial in comparison with getting shot at
in foreign lands defending the interests of U.S. corporations. If
feminists were truly interested in Equality, rather than gaining
ever more special privileges for women, they would be proactively
lobbying the Congress and the courts to register women for
Selective Service.
Is it not the very meaning of citizenship that the citizen of a
state is obligated to protect and defend that form of government
which affords her the privileges and protections of citizenship?
How come, when women got the right to vote, they were not instantly
saddled with the responsibility to fight in war to defend their
right to vote? What mysterious, archaic gender paradigms populate
our psyches, blinding us to the actual spectrum of issues which
constitute "equality" and "citizenship"? Who has managed to control
the gender equality debate to the extent that Selective Service
registration has remained absent from it for 70 years? Why do they
do it? What deeper paradigms are they skirting, glossing over,
concealing? And...given that men are expected to fight in war and
women are not, is it not possible to conclude that men are NOT the
oppressors of women, but that men are, in fact, the PROTECTORS of
women?
Right now I am somewhat willingly stranded on a small island in the
South Pacific. There are no roads, no cars, no electricity, no
phones. My hosts are in great part a hunter/gatherer culture. I
spend my days with the men, fishing and collecting fruits: papaya,
breadfruit, coconuts, bananas. The women stick close to home,
sweeping the packed earth around their coconut leaf huts, shooing
pigs out of the garden, collecting shellfish off the reef at low
tide. Both men and women cook and tend the infants, depending upon
who is not engaged in some other activity at the time. As other
researchers have pointed out, there is less division of labor in
both hunter/gatherer and "information age" societies than in the
agricultural and industrial societies of recent epochs.
But the dangerous work is still done by the men. Women don't climb
coconut trees (fat as I am, neither do I). Women don't ride small
boats out into huge waves to catch fish. Women are not drafted in
time of war. As in Europe and America, most families here are de
facto matriarchies, governed by the iron will of the eldest
surviving family member -- almost always a female. Men appear to
have a great deal of autonomy while they're alive, but they simply
do not last as long as women. While young women complain about
social restrictions and lack of freedom, old women govern the
wealth of the family -- in Europe, America, and the South Pacific.
Thus, the very things that feminists complain about, are the things
that ensure women's eventual dominion over the accumulated
resources of the family. The men lead tough, dangerous lives, die
sooner, and the family wealth devolves into the hands of the elder
women.
"Equality" is not age specific. It's meaningless to ask whether men
and women are treated equally at the age of 18, 35, 72. Equality
embraces a lifetime of events. And it's clear -- in Europe,
America, and the South Pacific -- that over a lifetime women
possess more security and authority than men. Why? Because men
willingly sacrifice their well being for women. Because men are the
protectors and defenders of women. Because men die for women.
Why do they do it?
Because women are widely regarded to be more valuable than men.
Women make babies. A deep biological imperative within men supports
the notion that women and babies must be protected and defended.
That's why there are male feminists. Male feminists are men
expressing their innate urge to protect and defend women.
Challenging and critiquing women runs against our character. We
hate fighting with women.
So what about military service? Is draft registration a moot point
since we're not at war? A young man I know of was recently booted
out of an Ivy League school -- lost his admission and scholarship
-- when it was discovered he had neglected to register for the
draft. The school received federal funds, one requirement of which
is that all males over the age of 18 must be registered for the
Selective Service. The school could lose it's federal money if it
doesn't comply, so the young man gets the "heave ho" -- instantly
-- no appeal. Female co-eds need not worry about this sort of
career disruption.
Bills have been sponsored in the U.S. Congress to register women
for Selective Service. They did not pass. They got no feminist
support. Moreover, since it is the policy of the Pentagon that
women cannot be forced to perform combat duties, the issue of
drafting them was deemed irrelevant. Tell that to the guys getting
shot at.
I talked to some marines from Somalia. Their beef about women
soldiers is that, while the guys are sent into the desert or on
combat missions, the female marines guard the embassies and toady
about with the diplomats and generals -- ensuring their own
promotions.
It is a well-known fact that, during the build-up to the Iraq War,
droves of female soldiers became suddenly ill or, more remarkably,
temporarily pregnant -- many with pregnancies which seemed,
miraculously, to vanish when the hostilities ended. Is military
service just another career track for women? Another way to get a
paycheck and a pension without having to risk too much?
And...while the engines of feminist propaganda inflamed the nation
over the issue of admitting young women to military academies, the
real issue -- registering ALL women for Selective Service in combat
roles -- was cleanly swept under the rug.
Why do feminists, male and female, dodge this issue?
Because it is the death knell to their movement.
On every radio show I've ever done with ideological feminists --
where I was able to raise the Selective Service issue -- I was met
with a prolonged pause, then a gush of unanimous and unequivocal
agreement that women should be compelled to register, then the
topic was swiftly changed to something else -- a peculiarly
feminine technique for avoiding unpleasantness. They'll talk about
it. But they won't do anything about it. Why won't feminists
proactively advocate this issue?
Because they know their constituents. They know that the feminist
movement would endure an 80% desertion rate led by those gender
opportunists who go by the name of Equity Feminists if the
ideologues began openly advocating draft registration. Far and away
most women do NOT want to register for the draft. They do not want
equality -- not if it means they REALLY have to fight for it.
And how about the people who don't believe in war?
Welcome to a bigger problem.
I didn't believe in the Vietnam War. I was drafted anyway. The
women with whom I had pursued undergraduate studies at the
University of Chicago sailed blithely off to graduate school, while
I went underground dodging the F.B.I. It was no fun. And it
certainly wasn't Equality.
200 years ago a flurry of democratic revolutions established that a
person willing to fight and risk his life could be liberated from
monarchy and gain the right to vote for his governors. 140 years
later women obtained the right to vote, without being obligated to
fight for, or risk anything. Is this not simply another instance of
men affording special protections for women? It was men, after all
-- the guys who fight and die -- who granted women the right to
vote.
Have we not lost sight of what citizenship in a democracy is all
about? How can our media focus on the "glass ceiling" and ignore
this obvious inequity? I have no problem with women becoming
senators, CEOs, or Supreme Court Justices. I DO have a problem with
the idea that these women never, ever, have to fight to defend the
form of government which permits them to attain these high
positions.
Aristocrats are a privileged species of human being. Aristocrats
are not expected to perform hard, dangerous, physical labor -- no
bricklaying or asphalt pouring or oil well drilling for these
folks. Aristocrats are not expected to serve as common soldiers in
time of war -- for them are reserved positions of command and
supply, far removed from the front lines. Are we not creating an
aristocracy of women? Are we not breeding a race of privileged
creatures, with guaranteed rights for advancement into positions of
authority, who are not expected to perform nasty physical labor nor
fight in time of war? It seems to me democracy is circling back on
itself, like a snake swallowing its own tail, recreating a type of
aristocrat, a privileged individual, one who wears a slightly more
attractive gown, yet one who is, as in the olden days, endowed with
favored status from her time of birth. Is it possible we are
recreating an aristocracy of women?
All the feminist issues of the last 30 years rolled up into one
pale in comparison to the image of the male draftee, getting shot
at, by people he doesn't know, in a war he doesn't believe in. This
is TRUE powerlessness, not TV hype.
Equality is not just about money and political power. It is also
about human relationships. Whether it's a father who isn't allowed
to see his children, a coal miner or bricklayer working a job he
hates to feed his wife and kids, or a draftee getting shot at, the
stark oppression of men in the entire arena of human relationships
is perhaps the major untold academic saga of this century. We need
much more serious academic inquiry into why men get stuck with the
hard dangerous jobs, and why men get stuck fighting wars. Draft
women. Let them get shot at -- or run from the F.B.I. That's real
equality. That's civic responsibility. If women cannot accede to
registering for Selective Service their very right to vote, much
less their right to become senators, judges and CEOs, is called
into question. Equality means equality of responsibility. Women can
NEVER be equal without it.
But we -- bio-imprinted males that we are -- will continue
protecting them and defending them while they rail at us for being
their oppressors. Like cocks in a barnyard, no matter what
injustices and outrages we female sympathizers foist on the rest of
the male species, we will carry on blithely protecting and
defending women and advocating their favorite issues. That's how we
were made. Men compete with each other for the privilege of
protecting women. And the guy who does the best job of that wins
the emotional reward that women offer -- and I'm not just talking
about getting laid.
But the joke's on us. Women live longer. Women control 65% of
America's wealth (Forbes magazine). Women don't need our
protection. Women don't have to fight in war.
Oops...please excuse me. I have to go. It's windy and raining, dark
clouds lashing across the lagoon, but the guys want to go fishing
and I should go too. Don't ask me why. I'll never understand. It's
just something guys do -- enduring pain and discomfort to gain
sustenance for the women and kids. That's not likely to change. Not
in Europe, America or the South Pacific. Men take natural pleasure
in protecting and providing for women. It's part of our
bio-make-up.
And it doesn't run in the opposite direction. Few women are
dedicated to protecting and providing for men. Few women will lay
bricks or mine coal for a husband who stays home cooking pancakes.
Equality between the sexes? It's about as germane an issue as
financial security for sea urchins. If women want equality tell
them to register for the draft. If not, tell them to stop yapping
about it.
It's cold and wet out here. There are wild, wind-whipped waves and
razor-backed reefs and mean-toothed fish to haul into the boat.
It's not ideology. It's not something you discuss in climate
controlled rooms. It's something you do.
