LDS Perspectives on Women Being Subject to Military Draft

[smac97]

So I just came across this article:

Quote

 

GOP blocks provision to require women to register for draft
Published May 17, 2016  Associated Press

Buckling under conservative pressure, the Republican-led House Rules Committee pulled a legislative sleight of hand and stripped a provision from the annual defense policy bill that would have required women between the ages of 18 and 25 to sign up for a military draft.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said in a statement Tuesday the action was taken to prevent what he called a "reckless policy" from moving forward without closer study of its impact.

"I have the utmost respect and deepest appreciation for the young women who bravely volunteer to serve our country, but I am adamantly opposed to coercing America's daughters to sign up for the Selective Service at 18 years of age," Sessions said.

...

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. Thornberry said a broader discussion of whether the nation even needs the Selective Service at a time of the all-volunteer force might be necessary.

Military leaders maintain the all-volunteer force is working and do not want a return to conscription. The U.S. has not had a military draft since 1973, in the waning years of the Vietnam War era. Still, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register.

"It's what a man's got to do," says the Selective Service website.

...

The move was triggered by the Pentagon's decision late last year to open all front-line combat jobs to women. After gender restrictions to military service were erased, the top uniformed officers in each of the military branches expressed support during congressional testimony for including women in a potential draft.

 

I am interested in hearing from faithful Latter-day Saints (particularly, though not exclusively, LDS women) regarding this issue (other folks can, of course, chime in, though I would appreciate minimal derailings).

What do you think?  Should women be subject to the military draft?

By extrapolation, I conclude that the Church has previously been opposed to such a thing.  Consider this March 1980 Ensign article about the Equal Rights Amendment:

Quote

 

Recently there has been increasing nationwide interest in the stand of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Many members of the Church are sincerely asking, “Why has the Church considered this a moral issue?” and “Why has the First Presidency taken so positive a stand on the matter?”

For the benefit of subscribers, members, and nonmember friends and neighbors, Church magazine personnel have researched this issue and have attempted to answer these questions

...

10. What would be the ERA’s impact on military service for women?

ERA proponents concede that its passage would impose upon women the same draft requirements as men and the further probability of comparable combat duty, with the particular hazards that poses for women.

...

10. What would be the ERA’s impact on military service for women?

Many proponents of the ERA conclude that if men are drafted, women should be also. They point to Israel as an example of a democracy where both men and women are required to serve in the military. Israeli women, however, are subject to an equal rights provision that does not require absolute equality in the military. They serve shorter terms than men. They are exempt from service if they marry or have a child. They live in separate barracks and are not subject to combat.

Women have given and continue to give invaluable patriotic service in the military. But to require women to serve, especially on the same basis as men, would remove a traditional freedom. Further, many ramifications of the ERA in military life deeply concern us. For example, it is anticipated that under the ERA men and women in the military could be compelled to live in mixed housing, which would violate the religious and moral ideals of many.

Senator Hiram Fong of Hawaii raised this question concerning the ERA and the military. He said: “If women are found physically qualified (under the same tests administered to determine men’s qualifications) they will, in all likelihood, be required to serve in combat. Separate units for women will, I believe, be abolished just as separate ethnic and racial units in the Armed Forces have been abolished—both men and women will serve in the same units. What privacy women will be able to be afforded, if any, is uncertain” (Senate Report 92–689, pp. 24–25).

Recent newspaper reports have focused on other hazards to women in the military. In a UPI release, Senator William Proxmire (D-Wis.) noted an effect of more women serving alongside men in the army. There is “growing evidence that sexual abuse of women has become pervasive on certain bases.” He continued: “The pattern of sexual abuse ranges from persistent verbal harassment and sexual comment to explicit threats and coercion to trade sex for promotion or other privileges” (Deseret News, 3 Jan. 1980, p. A-13).

Under the ERA, with more women required to serve on the same basis as men, it is feared that such abuses would only increase. General Elizabeth Hoisington, former director of the Women’s Army Corps, has pointed out the “peripheral dangers of serving in combat units—being raped by strangers or temporarily crazed comrades; being taken prisoner of war and being abused, beaten, and starved; being mentally and physically incapable of performing one’s assigned duties in combat and responsible for others’ being killed or wounded. …

“There is more to fear than being killed and not returning to your loved ones at home,” she concluded (Washington Star, 9 Jan. 1980, pp. A-1 ff).

Under existing laws, Congress has the power to draft women, but even in dire national emergency has never chosen to do so. Should it at some time exercise that power, Congress could give women the option of not going into combat and could preserve their privacy rights. Congress could even rescind the drafting of women. Passage of the ERA would not allow Congress any of these options.

Also these remarks by Elder Packer in 1977, which FAIR summarizes as follows:

Quote

Both inside and outside the Church, opponents to the ERA expressed concerns that the amendment would erase important distinctions between men and women. In the words of Boyd K. Packer:

Quote

Among the great dangers in the [ERA] is the fact that it would deprive lawmakers and government officials alike of the right by legal means to honor the vital differences in the roles of men and women.

The concern was that a codified homogenization of genders would limit women’s power to choose to fulfill traditional roles. Without certain “necessary protections and exemptions” it was feared that women would be forced into difficult positions through:

• -being made subject to compulsory military service even if they were raising small children
• -lapses in court orders for child and spousal support payments
• -weakening of sexual assault prosecutions
• -loss of existing spousal benefits such as medical insurance
• -changes to the tax system that might make it more difficult financially for people to live as married couples.

All these potential effects of the ERA were seen as damaging to family life in America. Boyd K. Packer said:

Quote

We [the Church] analyze the effect of every influence that comes along, as it may ultimately change by way of strengthening, or threaten by way of weakening, the family. We have the lingering, ominous suspicion that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have paid little, if any, attention to the family at all.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

I would fight against the idea of drafting women for combat, but there is nothing scientific that I can point to to back up my case.  

[jkwilliams]

I have a nephew in the Israeli Army, which is thoroughly integrated with men and women. He tells me that Israeli soldiers are tough, no matter their gender. It seems to me the major objections to females being drafted or serving in combat roles are cultural and religious rather than practical. For me, draft registration is something done for possible emergencies in the future. If there is a need for women in military service, even if they are restricted to certain roles, in such an emergency, I'm not opposed to women registering for the draft.

As for women in combat, I really haven't thought much about it. I suppose if a woman wants to serve in a combat role and can pass the tests (physical and otherwise), she should have the opportunity to serve.

[smac97]

On 5/18/2016 at 9:58 AM, jkwilliams said:

As for women in combat, I really haven't thought much about it. I suppose if a woman wants to serve in a combat role and can pass the tests (physical and otherwise), she should have the opportunity to serve.

Okay.  Here's another question: Should the physical requirements for women in the military be different from (read: lesser/easier than) the requirements for men?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

of course in the book of Mormon, it appears, there were times when women were expected to take up arms for military operations. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Here's another question: Should the physical requirements for women in the military be different from (read: lesser/easier than) the requirements for men?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope, I don't think so. In the private sector, if a job requires someone to lift 100 lbs., those who can't do that are not going to get hired, regardless of gender. I would think the same goes for the military. Now, if the physical requirements were set in place for no other reason than to exclude women, I would suggest lowering the requirements for all applicants. Seems fair, anyway.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So I just came across this article:

I am interested in hearing from faithful Latter-day Saints (particularly, though not exclusively, LDS women) regarding this issue (other folks can, of course, chime in, though I would appreciate minimal derailings).

What do you think?  Should women be subject to the military draft?

By extrapolation, I conclude that the Church has previously been opposed to such a thing.  Consider this March 1980 Ensign article about the Equal Rights Amendment:

Also these remarks by Elder Packer in 1977, which FAIR summarizes as follows:

Thanks,

-Smac

Some secular traditions are supportive of the Gospel or Zion tradition and should be perpetuated and improved upon; in this instance, where “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Traditions that support gender distinction can contribute to the spiritual, emotional, social and overall well-being of the individual, couple and family as detailed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Naturally these traditions evolve through negotiation within a society, and military draft in and of itself needn’t be construed as a codified homogenization of genders, especially within a highly militarized society. However, an abrupt push to engineer or change a society’s traditions, even when supportive of the Gospel, is typically not in that society’s nor the Gospel’s best interests. Just as people need to be fed before receiving the Gospel message, their psychic and societal mores must also remain relatively stable to allow the light to operate within the individual soul (and the Spirit is introduced and received on a one-on-one basis).

In my opinion, both gender homogenization and militarization are not healthy foundations for any society, and are also inconsistent with Gospel ideals. Equality and protection are necessary appendages to a society’s foundation, not its identity. And we all know the family is the foundation of society, with all that entails gender-wise.

[smac97]

On 5/18/2016 at 10:17 AM, jkwilliams said:

Nope, I don't think so. In the private sector, if a job requires someone to lift 100 lbs., those who can't do that are not going to get hired, regardless of gender. I would think the same goes for the military.

The physical requirements are, and always have been, different (lesser/easier) for female soldiers than for male soldiers.

Quote

Now, if the physical requirements were set in place for no other reason than to exclude women, I would suggest lowering the requirements for all applicants. Seems fair, anyway.

I think it's quite the contrary: the lesser/easier physical requirements were set in place to accommodate women serving in the military, not to exclude them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The physical requirements are, and always have been, different (lesser/easier) for female soldiers than for male soldiers.

I think it's quite the contrary: the lesser/easier physical requirements were set in place to accommodate women serving in the military, not to exclude them.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't agree with that. If the job is such that someone of lesser physical condition can do it, it seems weird to require more or less solely because of gender. 

[smac97]

On 5/18/2016 at 10:46 AM, jkwilliams said:

I don't agree with that. If the job is such that someone of lesser physical condition can do it, it seems weird to require more or less solely because of gender. 

Do you think there are perhaps quantifiable physiological differences between the male and female of the species?  That is, that men are generally physically larger than women, have more upper body muscle mass, etc.?

I think we end up with three broad options as far as physical fitness requirements:

• Option One: We presume there are no material physiological differences between men and women, and therefore impose the same rigorous physical requirements for women as we do for men.  

• Option Two: We concede there are material physiological differences between men and women, but in the name of "equality" we nevertheless impose the same rigorous physical requirements for women as we do for men.  (Consider, for example, these findings: "In a previous briefing, the Marines presented information on physiology and performance differences to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. They confirmed that on average, women have 20 percent lower aerobic capacity, 47 percent lower lifting strength, and 26 percent slower road marching speed. Female attrition/injury rates during entry level training are double those of men, and non-deployability occurs three times more often."  And this: "William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The 'fight load' -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run."  And this (same link): "All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.")

• Option Three: We concede there are material physiological differences between men and women, and subsequently find that women are generally not as capable of meeting the rigorous physical requirements imposed on men.  However, imposing a gender-blind physical fitness standard would necessarily result in far fewer women being able to serve in the military.  Therefore, in the name of "equality" we create a separate, easier, lesser set of physical fitness standards for women.

You do not seem to like Option Three (which is where we are).  Would you prefer Option One or Option Two?

And the physical fitness requirements are only one facet of this issue.  What about "the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as likely as men to be undeployable?"  See also here: "Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant." 

What about hand-to-hand combat training?  Consider this observation:

Quote

Then there's hand-to-hand combat training, which comes near the end of the Army's basic training. Recruits spend a few hours facing off against each other in pugil stick bouts. Pugil sticks are padded training weapons used since World War II by each branch of the military to train service members for hand-to-hand rifle and bayonet combat. The object of the training is to subdue your opponent. Women are at a severe disadvantage because upper-body strength really counts. Given the timidity and character of today's military leaders, I predict several possibilities: Training with pugil sticks will be banned, or servicewomen will train only against other servicewomen, or, if the training is integrated, servicemen will be court-martialed if they knock out or knock down a servicewoman. Even if our military leaders fudge this aspect of training, what happens in actual combat when hand-to-hand skills are called upon?

Are we going to segregate women from men during this training (which, I can report first-hand, can be pretty brutal)?  If we don't segregate, many women are going to get thrashed by their male trainee counterparts.  If we do segregate, then women will be practicing against other (generally physically-weaker-than-men) trainees, and will therefore be receiving less rigorous training, and will therefore be less prepared for actual combat.

What about the political risks?  See here: "Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of military social engineering is the cover-up of failure. Officers who criticize double standards or expose official lies and deception about servicewomen's performance risk their careers. Those official lies and deception will eventually reveal themselves with unnecessary loss of lives on the battlefield."

What about unit cohesion?  

Are women going to be billeted separately from men during training?  In combat?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2016 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there are perhaps quantifiable physiological differences between the male and female of the species?  That is, that men are generally physically larger than women, have more upper body muscle mass, etc.?

I think we end up with three broad options as far as physical fitness requirements:

• Option One: We presume there are no material physiological differences between men and women, and therefore impose the same rigorous physical requirements for women as we do for men.  

• Option Two: We concede there are material physiological differences between men and women, but in the name of "equality" we nevertheless impose the same rigorous physical requirements for women as we do for men.  (Consider, for example, these findings: "In a previous briefing, the Marines presented information on physiology and performance differences to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. They confirmed that on average, women have 20 percent lower aerobic capacity, 47 percent lower lifting strength, and 26 percent slower road marching speed. Female attrition/injury rates during entry level training are double those of men, and non-deployability occurs three times more often."  And this: "William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The 'fight load' -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run."  And this (same link): "All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.")

• Option Three: We concede there are material physiological differences between men and women, and subsequently find that women are generally not as capable of meeting the rigorous physical requirements imposed on men.  However, imposing a gender-blind physical fitness standard would necessarily result in far fewer women being able to serve in the military.  Therefore, in the name of "equality" we create a separate, easier, lesser set of physical fitness standards for women.

You do not seem to like Option Three (which is where we are).  Would you prefer Option One or Option Two?

And the physical fitness requirements are only one facet of this issue.  What about "the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as likely as men to be undeployable?"  See also here: "Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant." 

What about hand-to-hand combat training?  Consider this observation:

Are we going to segregate women from men during this training (which, I can report first-hand, can be pretty brutal)?  If we don't segregate, many women are going to get thrashed by their male trainee counterparts.  If we do segregate, then women will be practicing against other (generally physically-weaker-than-men) trainees, and will therefore be receiving less rigorous training, and will therefore be less prepared for actual combat.

What about the political risks?  See here: "Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of military social engineering is the cover-up of failure. Officers who criticize double standards or expose official lies and deception about servicewomen's performance risk their careers. Those official lies and deception will eventually reveal themselves with unnecessary loss of lives on the battlefield."

What about unit cohesion?  

Are women going to be billeted separately from men during training?  In combat?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think I've been pretty clear. If a specific job requires specific abilities, that should be the requirement, regardless of gender. I don't think every job in the military requires the same physical capabilities as those required for, say, Special Forces. 

The rest of it, I'm sure the military can sort it out. Other countries have managed to do so successfully. The IDF, for example, does not have different fitness requirements for men and women but rather assigns soldiers to non-combat, combat, and "elite combat" positions based on the scores. As I said, my nephew hasn't noticed any issues with women in his unit in the IDF.

http://garinmahal.com/getting-started/idf-fitness-test

[Gray]

Personally I think the draft should be done away with entirely. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Personally I think the draft should be done away with entirely. 

I agree.  If we don't need it, i don't see what purpose it fulfills.

[Buckeye]

I'd be interested in knowing of any current LDS position. The sources cited in the OP are 35-40 years old.

Personally, I have two young daughters. I have no desire of seeing them conscripted. However, I also don't want my sons to be conscripted. And so long as we have conscription, it should be applied equally. Women should be required to register too.

Very importantly, though, I do not equate being on a draft list with being sent to the front lines in a place that would treat women differently from men. Just as our government did not send Japanese-Americans to the front lines in the Pacific (under the belief that, if captured, such soldiers would be treated worse because of their heritage) I would expect that our government would not send women to fight in places where they face a materially-greater risk than men. Being drafted does not mean front line service. It could mean being put to work stateside, flying drones, etc.

FWIW, I think the fall-out of all this will be that men are no longer required to register.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Buckeye

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  If we don't need it, i don't see what purpose it fulfills.

Strictly speaking, we don't have a draft in the US. Registration is simply for when we do need it. I hope that day doesn't come again, but at least registration means we're slightly more ready for it.

[USU78]

My sniffer says it's barbaric.

But my sniffer likes the IDF, too, so what do I know.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

My sniffer says it's barbaric.

But my sniffer likes the IDF, too, so what do I know.

My nephew's decision to join the IDF wasn't exactly greeted with enthusiasm in our family, but it seems to be having a very positive impact on him. He's learning focus and discipline, which he will tell you he lacked in college. He'll be in for 18 months, I think, and then it's back to school in the US. I pray he stays safe, but I'm proud of him.

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My nephew's decision to join the IDF wasn't exactly greeted with enthusiasm in our family, but it seems to be having a very positive impact on him. He's learning focus and discipline, which he will tell you he lacked in college. He'll be in for 18 months, I think, and then it's back to school in the US. I pray he stays safe, but I'm proud of him.

My favorite thing anybody ever said about the IDF:

 

Quote

 

Joe Friday: Ah, sure, but just like every other foaming, rabid psycho in this city with a foolproof plan, you've forgotten you're facing the single finest fighting force ever assembled.

Reverend Jonathan Whirley: The Israelis?

 

 

 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope, I don't think so. In the private sector, if a job requires someone to lift 100 lbs., those who can't do that are not going to get hired, regardless of gender. I would think the same goes for the military. Now, if the physical requirements were set in place for no other reason than to exclude women, I would suggest lowering the requirements for all applicants. Seems fair, anyway.

In my job, I was told that if I couldn't unload a pallet of heavy dough..to go home.  I am still thinking about the initial question in the OP.  As far as combat, I feel like for a woman that should be a choice; but that being said, men don't get choices and that's not fair either.  I apologize that I replied as a non-LDS woman.  My pov may not matter.

[smac97]

On 5/18/2016 at 1:41 PM, Jeanne said:

In my job, I was told that if I couldn't unload a pallet of heavy dough..to go home.  I am still thinking about the initial question in the OP.  As far as combat, I feel like for a woman that should be a choice; but that being said, men don't get choices and that's not fair either.  I apologize that I replied as a non-LDS woman.  My pov may not matter.

As I said, all are welcome to present their viewpoints.  I was simply more curious about the perspective of faithful LDS women.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

As I said, all are welcome to present their viewpoints.  I was simply more curious about the perspective of faithful LDS women.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thank you.  Thanks for puttin'  up with this lady.  I always have a viewpoint and can't keep my mouth shut.

[carbon dioxide]

I have no problem with women wanting equality with men.  But if they want equality then that means the equal right and opportunity to die or get injured in a foreign country fighting for causes that are not essential to the preservation of the Constitution and US just like the men do.  So yes, if men get drafted, so should the women.

Edited May 18, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[toon]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Here's another question: Should the physical requirements for women in the military be different from (read: lesser/easier than) the requirements for men?

Thanks,

-Smac

No.  And I think the military has made it abundantly clear that that is not and will not be the case, at least with regard to combat roles.  In that regard, I see no problem with reevaluating the requirements to ensure they truly match the job in question and the military's needs at the time.

As much as I may have wanted to serve, I could never have passed the minimum eyesight requirements.  (I failed the physical for JAG.)  But I also understand that needs change depending on the circumstances, that sometimes the lowering of standards is necessary if you are otherwise unable to recruit or obtain the number necessary for the job.  I also understand the nature of diminishing returns and the point at which reducing standards increases risk, etc.

I also think that there is no longer a need for a draft, nor a need to register for the draft.  But so long as there is a potential of compulsory service, I don't see how sex discrimination in the process can be justified. 

[toon]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The physical requirements are, and always have been, different (lesser/easier) for female soldiers than for male soldiers.

I think it's quite the contrary: the lesser/easier physical requirements were set in place to accommodate women serving in the military, not to exclude them.

Thanks,

-Smac

My understanding, however, is that those "lesser/easier" requirements are more a reflection of the fact that the other requirements were not necessary for the job in the first place.  For combat duty, to the extent that women now are eligible for it, there has been no lessening of requirements.

[rpn]

I don't think there is an LDS position.   Women serve compulsory in armed services of various countries already.   While I fully understand the different risks women face fighting in wars (and it is currently nice that the draft is in form only),  I cannot accept exempting women from being subject to the draft that men are subject to.  Why in our current world is it only the job of men to defend?  What if there are not enough men to defend?   Why would we object to the training that women would have if they were drafted?  Wouldn't it be a good thing if every citizen knew how to shoot a gun, in case by some awfulness one is needed (not that as a believer, we all would chose to shoot it even when others thought it to be justified, of course).   And why should women expect to hang onto the coattails of their fellow male citizens in defending their homeland.

When I take this position in social media, I hear how different men and women are.   But they don't have less psychological strength, and they aren't less able to figure out problems.  Yes, many are less able to care backpacks or a fallen comrade no one wants to leave behind.  But warfare is less and less based on brawn.

Those who fight changing the law to include women IMHO are clinging to the women belong barefoot and pregnant in the home view.  And that is a long outdated one that demeans women's strengths and contributions to the greater world.   (Besides, if women have to enroll, perhaps our leaders would be less quick to go to war, which can only be a good thing.)

Edited May 18, 2016 by rpn