It’s difficult to get away from all the voices clamoring for “women’s rights” and the notion they should be able to do anything men do (no matter what physical differences might tend to indicate).
OK, feminists — how dedicated to this agenda are you? Because if there is no reason to keep women from, say, the front lines of military combat, then there’s no reason not to require them to register for selective service… the draft. I’m in complete agreement with Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today column — including the idea there shouldn’t be a draft at all:
…Army Secretary John McHugh was talking about subjecting women to the draft on Monday.
I’m against a draft in general, despite ongoing efforts by people like congressman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to bring it back. As Robert Heinlein once said, a nation that can’t defend itself without conscription doesn’t deserve to survive. But that said, if we’re going to have a draft, I don’t see why it shouldn’t apply to women, too. …
I’d do away with registration if it were up to me. And I wouldn’t bring back the draft, either. But to the extent we have either, women should be just as subject as men. That’s what equality means.
Exactly. I don’t expect such consistency from most of these advocacy groups, though. They’re interested in rights, but not obligations. And just to reiterate: I don’t think the State should have the power to compel ANYONE to serve in the military. Lacking that ability, maybe we’d be more restrained with our military power, and fight only when there’s a vital enough interest at stake that people willingly sign on. But as long as we’re going to concede the State such power over our very lives, it should apply equitably… or not at all.