We Already Draft Women in Times of War, moans Valerie Hudson. Poor snowflake. Equality sucks, doesn’t it? Let’s take a look at Hudson’s hilariously inept attempt to exempt women from actual equality.
When the combat exclusion for women was lifted in January 2013, I was very happy, as a woman and as a feminist. Women who volunteer to join the armed forces should also have the right to volunteer for infantry, armor, and artillery occupational specialties, given physical standards will remain high and bar both men and women who are not qualified for combat. In other words, if a woman has chosen this path and can meet the standards, why would we deny her the right to fight for her country? There is no reason we should take this choice from her.
Well, cupcake, women actually can’t meet the standards, but you whiny, hysterical shrews have convinced the Marine Corps to risk the lives of their male soldiers to appease your futile and dangerous attempt to compete with real soldiers because otherwise you’ll cry.
The correct response from Pendleton should have been sit down maggot and shut your fucking cockholster before I shut it for you, but you whiny bitches (the ones who can apparently handle combat) can’t handle mean words like cockholster that hurt your delicate fee-fees.
How unsurprising, then, that the commandant of the Marine Corps—the service that went kicking and screaming to the bitter end about excluding women from their ranks—was the one who chose to start a debate over Selective Service Registration for women. The Senate vote yesterday on the National Defense Authorization Act—85 to 13—raised the ante. This is an old political trick, designed to undercut a consensus by splintering it.
Yeah, either that, or he is gonna slap you dumb bitches in the goddamn face with how retarded you all are. You want equality? You got it.
We’ve seen quite a few splinters. Republicans are all over the place on the issue, with Sen. Ted Cruz utterly rejecting the idea, stating it was “nuts,” and “The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat to my mind makes little or no sense,” but John McCain and Jeff Sessions are all for it. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton recently came out supporting female conscription, Sen. Claire McGaskill agrees with the generals, and Sen. Bernie Sanders has remained studiously mum. The commandant must be elated to have created such a large amount of shrapnel at no cost to himself.
This writer must be elated to use the word shrapnel as a metaphor in an article that discusses forcing young humans to face actual shrapnel.
But the entire brouhaha panders to a false assumption the Marine Corps commandant made. Until we name and acknowledge that false equivalence, we cannot have an effective debate on the issue.
Do tell, oh weasel feminist. How are women exempt? Let me count the ways you will lie your ass off to avoid having any accountability or real obligation to the state.
What is that false assumption? It is that women are not already drafted. Of course women are already drafted! We just refuse, as a society, to acknowledge that fact. So let me acknowledge it here, in the hopes that will promote more meaningful debate over such an important national policy issue. My thesis is simple: women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, whether we are speaking of blood or of treasure. To see how this is so, let us step back for a moment and consider the overarching task of national survival that is at the heart of all security policy. At a minimum, there are two critical tasks: the nation must secure its present and it must secure its future.
Let’s keep our focus on that key word must.
To secure its present, a nation must provide for its own protection, even physical protection in the form of armed forces whose members are willing to lay down their health and even their very lives if necessary to counter threats to the nation’s security. This is an honorable and critical task, enshrined in our Constitution as a basic responsibility of our country’s government. But securing the present is not enough for a nation to survive. A nation must also secure its future.
And now, she introduces the concept of responsibility. Note that the members of the armed forces are gender neutral here. Dance, little hamster, dance.
That first means the nation needs a next generation of citizens. Unless and until modern technology provides an alternative, the task of physically providing a next generation to secure a nation’s future rests solely in the wombs of American women. We women are drafted in this cause, because men are physically incapable of the task.
Lol! Firstly, that’s not how human reproduction works, darling. Wombs don’t create life all by themselves. Men are needed. Is anyone surprised that the first justification for why women shouldn’t be drafted involves the complete erasure of men from the process? Hudson doesn’t dare come out and say ‘well we only need a couple sperm donors and the rest we can safely kill’ because that would be inhuman, but it’s the subtext here, isn’t it.
Secondly, no woman is drafted into giving birth, although I think there’s a good argument that they should be. The state does not compel women to secure the nation’s future; indeed, women are allowed to murder the future and call it healthcare. Voluntary parenthood is the sole province of women, and at women’s sole discretion. There is no mechanism by which the state can currently force women to give birth as a matter of national security.
Women, as always, have choices. Men have responsibilities.
This draft has real consequences for the draftees. Women offer to lay down their health and even their very lives that their nation might have a future in the new citizens women’s sacrifices bring into the world. That we have not seen this as a patriotic service on a par with men’s service in combat says more about our society than it says about the reality of women’s valuable service to our country.
This comparison is absolutely absurd. I’m guessing Hudson doesn’t have any children and has never experienced child birth. Giving birth is indeed physically strenuous, but it is a process women are designed by nature to endure successfully and most do. The number one historical killer on the childbed was infection, often introduced by people helping with the birth. Mechanical problems remain quite rare events.
Five complications arising directly from pregnancy account for more than 70% of maternal deaths:
Unsafe abortion (13%)
Eclampsia (very high blood pressure leading to seizures – 12%)
Obstructed labour (8%).
Oh, and in a normal delivery, nobody shoots at you or drops bombs on the labor ward. There’s that little chestnut.
Indeed, consider that in the history of our nation, from 1776 onwards, vastly more women have died or been seriously harmed in or incident to childbirth than men have died or been wounded in battle. Approximately 1,200 American women die in childbirth every year, with almost 60,000 seriously wounded and suffering seriously physical harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure, or aneurysms. Indeed, the maternal mortality rate in the United States is now double what it was 25 years ago (it’s now 28 per 100,000 births).
Barbie, Barbie, Barbie. Math isn’t that hard. You’re just an obfuscating coward. According to the CDC around 600 women die in childbirth each year. Not 1200. Liar.
There were about 4M births in the US during that same year, so the death rate works out to about 0.00015.
Which one is bigger, Valerie? Can you tell? Is it 0.00015 or 0.0054? Are you stupid, or just an asshole?
These are not gentle deaths, either. My world was shaken a decade ago by the death of a young woman who was my neighbor. After a painful delivery, she bled to death on her hospital bed, the sheets soaked with her blood. She had literally laid down her life, suffered and died, to bring forth a new American, and in the process left three children without a mother. My friend paid the ultimate sacrifice. Please don’t tell me her death was any less of a sacrifice for our nation’s future than the deaths of soldiers abroad. We don’t see these deaths for what they are simply because these are not men’s ways of dying gloriously.
All death is horrible. But to compare dying in childbirth to combat is just … it’s a degree of casual cruelty that is really quite astonishing. Bleeding out in the comfort of a hospital bed, surrounded no doubt, by multiple skilled professionals working feverishly to save her, versus dying in a hail of bullets tearing through flesh and bone … yeah, I know which one I’d pick.
I say, until men can die in childbirth just like women have for centuries, women should not be drafted and forced to die in battle also—that would mean women would be given a burden double compared to men in securing the nation’s future. This double burden would deepen the inequality between men and women, counting as valuable only what men value, and doing so in a context where women are not equally represented when these momentous decisions are made.
Cute. So the standards in effect centuries ago are still to be applied even though the effects have largely been mitigated? Women may have died more frequently in childbirth hundreds of years ago, and child birth was more or less mandatory for all women, but the times, my dear, have changed.
If you want to hold men to the centuries old tradition of battle, then fairness and justice demands you hold women to the same standards. No birth control. No abortion. Childbirth becomes mandatory for virtually all women, some of whom will die.
Is that the equality you’re looking for?
Or are you looking to pour men’s blood into the soil at your convenience, while exercising your complete freedom to determine your own reproductive life?
Women have choices. Men have responsibilities.
That’s not equality.
Admit you don’t want equality and surrender your agency, or sign your draft card.
Lots of love,