Conscription and sexism

Both feminists and opponents of discrimination against men have criticized military conscription, or compulsory military service, as sexist.

Feminists have argued that military conscription is sexist because wars typically serve the interests of the patriarchy, because the military is a sexist institution, because conscription of men normalizes male violence as socially acceptable, because conscripts are indoctrinated in sexism and violence against women, and because military training socializes conscripts in patriarchal gender roles. Feminists have been organizers and participants in resistance to conscription.

Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription, and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that the theoretical arguments are immaterial to those who are pressed into service: "Some women are excluded from combat, but many more women are exempt. While some men are excluded from combat (because they fail the relevant tests), many more are pressured or forced into combat." According to Benatar, "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption".

Israeli female soldiers

Currently, only nine countries have laws allowing for the conscription of women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Norway, Bolivia and Taiwan. Other countries—such as Finland, Turkey, and Singapore—still use a system of conscription which requires military service from only men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily. In 2014, Norway became the first NATO country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality. The gender selective draft has been challenged in Switzerland, but the case was rejected by the Federal Supreme Court on the grounds that the specific law requiring service takes precedent over the general law forbidding sex discrimination. Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the conscription of men a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women.

The practice of conscription has been criticized by various men's rights groups, such as the National Coalition for Men, which claims that "no gender oppression is comparable". These groups have been joined on occasion by certain feminist activists. According to Joshua S. Goldstein, beginning in the 1970s "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that "the best way to insure women's equal treatment with men is to render them equally vulnerable with men to the political will of the state". Others have disagreed, however, contending that "by integrating into existing power structures including military forces and the war system without changing them, women merely prop up a male-dominated world instead of transforming it".

Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription" and continues elsewhere, stating that "any attempt to de-gender nationalism and citizenship needs to incorporate a discussion of universal male conscription". She goes on to quote feminist writer Cynthia Enloe, who argues that "there is a reason that so many states in the world have implemented military conscription laws for young men: most of those men would not join the state's military if it were left up to them to choose".

Selective service

Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) drawing the first capsule for the Selective Service draft, Dec 1, 1969.

In the United States, most male US citizens and residents must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Those who fail to register may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, although no non-registrants have been prosecuted since January 1986. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment, and for certain states, state employment and even driver's licenses . As of 2014, transgender women are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted. Transgender men are not required to register but may face difficulties in receiving benefits which require registration. Currently, women are exempted from the Selective Service System as only males are required to register; this cannot be changed without Congress amending the law, although combat roles for women have been allowed since January 23, 2013, which certain political analysts have said may get rid of the female exemption of registration.

The selective service has been challenged in court in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2012, and a lawsuit is currently pending appeal in the case of National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. All have argued in small or large part on the grounds of equal protection and due process on the basis of gender. Thus far all rulings have upheld the program, though on differing grounds. Professor Stephanie M. Wildman of Santa Clara Law called the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg "chilling to any advocate of full societal participation". In the ensuing congressional debate, Senator Mark Hatfield argued that:

The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal.

See also

• Sexism
• Conscription