Feel free to use all or part of the following discussion and modify it to meet your own views. Type “Contact Senator and Their Name” of your two Senators in a search engine and it will show a link to their official contact page. It is best to send it through their official web page contact the Senator which will require entering your name and contact information.
Subject: Selective Service Registration (NDAA)
The National Coalition For Men (NCFM.org-which I agree with) has again filed federally arguing that male only registration is a violation of the 5th Amendment to restrict females from registering for the draft. The previous suit had made it to the Supreme Court which deferred to Congress as the issue was then being debated. Congress having not acted on it the issue is once again being decided by the judicial branch and given restrictions on women in any position in the military, including combat, it is difficult to see how the suit will not be successful.
The question is, do we want this decided by the judiciary with no Congressional control?
The web site “There are no longer any private Ryan’s” found at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2025/06/there-are-no-longer-any-private-ryans/) argues for ALL persons of an age bracket to have to sign up for selective service but the actual draft should allow hardship exemptions (mothers, pregnant women, single fathers). Further, the military should be allowed to draft according to those they think will be able to meet the job qualifications such as doctors or nurses with advanced medical training. Also each branch should be able to report the number of males versus females in direct ground combat positions and draft according to those needs. Certainly the combat positions will be overwhelmingly male and losses (especially in peer on peer conflicts) will be disproportionately male requiring draft of a higher percentage of men.
85% of positions in the military are non combat so I ask the question and expect an answer; how is it fair to draft a married black fathers from his family restaurant in MS so he can be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ but we exempt a Single White Female with no children from culinary school in NYC?
Family demographics of today, which have changed from historical norms, are families of usually only one son and I make the argument that there are not enough men to fight overseas in a peer on peer conflict and protect the homeland from distant assaults (cyber, drone, missile) at the same time. Single women will simply need to step up and serve in these defensive support positions. The “I’m not going to let my daughter be drafted to be cannon fodder” firstly tells me you do not value your sons life and secondly is ludicrous in the fact that modern warfare is such that even third rate powers could attack the homeland making your daughter “cannon fodder” for a suicide drone.
Lastly, by exempting women with children and married women I expect the birth rate to increase with a decrease in abortions and formation of families with children. The 2.1 child per woman replacement rate would almost be met with no abortions as the rate absent them would be 1.9-2. Many women who were looking to put off children until later will certainly move up their timeline to avoid actually being drafted. Pregnancy was the most common reason for evacuating females from the Gulf War Theatre, although there are no definitive studies of increases in pregnancy and whether unintended or intentional. Each branch of service needs to look at pregnancy rates as they impact operational readiness (for example enlisted versus unlisted pregnancy rates are almost double of officers).
The argument for registration seems to be the 2 polar opposites, “no women made to serve as cannon fodder” and the opposing “women can do anything a man can do.” There is great overlap in the bell curve of physical and mental ability between men and women but the fact is that men are bigger and stronger on average and they will have to fill the bulk of combat positions. Secretary Hegseth is doing the right thing in requiring the same physical standards for combat positions regardless of sex. This needs to be done for every position, set the standards and work off of merit. Further, if females in forward units interferes with operational readiness upsetting unit cohesiveness or through fraternization and unintended pregnancies each branch should be able to direct personnel as needed without suffering complaints of discrimination based upon sex from females denied to serve in a specific position.
Societal impacts also need to be considered. The Men’s right to vote corresponded to his responsibility to serve the nation at time of need (military draft) but Women’s right to vote had no military service as their service to the nation was to have babies and nurture them (“Rights with Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/). I know few men who would not serve before their sister or wife but the fact we are demanding men alone suffer the draft while we exempt single females (especially if they serve the bulk of non combat and stateside positions) creates great animosity among men. By requiring ALL to register but exempting parent caregivers of children, etc. restores the balance between the sexes and allows men’s natural ingrained biological chivalry to protect women and children while requiring both sexes to serve “as needed” without placing women into a path in life not of their own choosing.
War is rapidly changing and many positions, lethal and defensive, no longer require strength. Women can certainly sit in the cockpit or container in Nevada and fly an aircraft. The “two big oceans” no longer protect us with drones, balloons, cyber, and missiles and any peer on peer conflict will result in attacks on the homeland. That said, what are we fighting for if not society, our way of life, and the next generation? We need to recognize, even with changing demographics and expectations of the sexes, that “those who birth children,” aka women, also serve. And we need to recognize that our right to vote requires the responsibility to serve “as needed” to our Republic held in common amongst all of us.
An argument for women in the military and to keep women out of most direct combat positions. And perhaps a solution to the low birth rate in America.
In the movie we find a unit assigned to find Private Ryan is WWII after ALL his brothers are killed in separate engagements. The question we have now is what do we do when the vast majority of families have only 2 children and most of them having only a single son? Do we exempt the single son’s from combat under the last remaining son doctrine?
Feminists have long argued that women should be allowed in combat roles and the lack of participation in combat roles was the reasoning SCOTUS used to exempt women from signing up for selective service. That has now been lifted and women are allowed in combat roles. The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had a lawsuit demanding equal treatment for males and females regarding selective service which made it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS (as is the norm for useless judges) failed to rule on the merits and deferred to Congress as the National Defense Authorization Act was being debated. Congress (as is the norm for useless politicians) ignored the issue hoping no one would notice and have it sway any votes for their reelection. (NCFM has refiled the suit due to Congress’ inaction)
At least in my case, and I expect in many others, they are wrong that this isn’t a voting issue.
It is high time we recognize that the “socially constructed gender” is a myth and that there are 2 sexes and that each sex has different physical abilities. That is not to say that the bell curve of physical ability at the top end for females is below the bottom end for males for there is a great overlap. But at the top end for males the size, strength, and lung and heart capacity is unequaled by any female. That is why the under 15 year old male soccer players trounced the USA Women’s National Team as the teen boys were “bigger, stronger, and faster” than adult females.
As I pointed out in a previous piece (Rights and Responsibilities: Voting and selective Service), the right to vote was contingent on the responsibility to serve the country in time of need. Note that the responsibility was not to serve in direct combat but was to serve when you had the skills needed by your country. We don’t draft 50 year olds to fight because they are not in their prime but in WWII we did use them in the civil defense and emergency response for the homeland.
85% of military positions are non combat support positions. When America had excess sons, almost every family was the Ryan Family with multiple boys, it made sense to fill all the positions with males. Especially since the war was being fought mostly overseas with America relatively safe with 2 large oceans to protect us. This is no longer the case as there are few “excess” sons anymore. Indeed, women deciding to have abortions and to work instead of having children has dropped the birth replacement rate well below replacement. Even if abortion was completely banned the birth rate would still be 1.9-2.0, below the replacement rate of 2.1 per female.
And the 2 big oceans which protect the homeland have shrunk due to technology. Recent conflicts have shown the nature of warfare is changing with missiles and drones having a great impact and the assault on Russia’s nuclear triad jets by Ukraine with drones hidden in their homeland has us expecting the same here in America. Add to that cyber assaults and terrorism, which are already occurring in America, and we can expect the same to increase if in a declared war. China’s Unrestricted Warfare policies means America will be attacked.
The aforementioned is exacerbated by illegal immigration which is almost all military aged males. While the selective service states that permanent resident immigrants, refugee, parolee, and asylum immigrants, and undocumented immigrants must resister for the draft how many do you think have actually done so? And if they did, how many would show up for military service instead of returning to their home country which they still pay allegiance to?
The question I ask is how it is fair to draft a Black Male Father from his families restaurant business in Mississippi to be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ and we exempt the Single White Female who is in culinary school in NYC to be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ? We require physically or mentally handicapped males who are able to “function in public with or without assistance” to register but exempt females entirely?
Where will we get the manpower to fight in a foreign war? 60% of democrats polled stated they would dodge the draft and not fight. We exempt all women, illegals are certainly not going to go fight so are we relying on the remaining moderate and conservative males to be cannon fodder while the rest stay home with no sacrifices? When the body bags come home who is going to replace them at the front? A young man can give up his career in (pick a field) to go fight for years and if lucky enough to return only to find he can work for a working on her career in your absence boss babe “single mom” who has been making time with an illegal immigrant who didn’t register or serve?
Feminists, always working for women’s privilege and not equality, have been quite quiet about women registering for the draft and it is in fact the TradCon Republican’s loudly working against it. Hon. Chip Roy of TX exemplifies the chivalrous gynocentric focus of their thinking yelling at any news outlet that will listen, “I’m not going to let my daughter be cannon fodder.” Of course his virtue signaling (I’m a real man!) is what is now being labelled as the “woke right.” So what we have is both the argument that women can do anything a man can do but that women should be given special privileges because they can’t do what men can do.
The answer is that women can do many of the things that men can do but men can do many of the physical things that women can’t do. We need to recognize that men and women are different. Regarding which jobs women can do and which jobs each man can do needs to be defined by each branch. ALL women and men should be required to sign up for selective service but if the need arises the selective service needs to be allowed to differentiate based upon sex and call up men only when Infantry or Special Operations Groups, etc. are needed.
And we need to restrict females from serving in the infantry and other front line positions which requires the strength of men; armor, field artillery, and combat engineers comes to mind among others. Marine Corp studies have shown that mixed sex combat units perform worse than male only units and it is the unspoken “secret” that standards were lowered to get females into these positions. The standard should be the standard, for ALL, with no deviations based upon sex or age. You can either physically do the job or not. 40 pound ammo boxes don’t get lighter for older men and women when they need to be moved.
Further, pregnant women, mothers of children, sole custody fathers, married women (assuming they did so to be mothers) and others with hardships related to caring for children should be exempt from being drafted (excepting a woman who divorces and has no children who would then be eligible to be drafted). While we can’t force women to have children, babies to replace the population losses due to war are necessary for society. By exempting these women from service we provide the incentive for women to have babies and not to abort them. This is accepting the biological differences between men and women and recognizing the role that mothers play, that by having children they serve society.
The “women as cannon fodder” and “real men don’t let women fight for them” opposing women signing up for selective service are straw man arguments given the majority of jobs are non combat, many stateside. So too is the “women can do anything a man can do” argument for allowing women into combat positions they are not physically designed to do as it reduces unit effectiveness and cohesion. The military shouldn’t be a “gender studies” experiment looking to attain “equitable” outcomes. Women should not be excluded from direct combat positions where the strength and size advantage of being male, fixed and rotary wing aircraft comes to mind, among others.
The right to vote us into war means you have the responsibility to serve the country as needed (see Rights and Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service and also correspondence to Senators regarding NDAA, Equal Rights and Responsibilities). Current demographics leave us with no excess males to use as “cannon fodder.” And “women as cannon fodder” while demanding your son sacrifice for them is a disgusting bit of misandry for which you should be ashamed. Given 85% of military positions are not direct combat there are certainly many positions which women can, and do, do. When we send our men off to a foreign war should we leave women all helpless and untrained sitting at home as the enemy turns America into “cannon fodder” with missiles, drones, cyber and terrorist attacks and unconventional warfare?
The military is based upon merit and the ability to do the job. Each branch can identify those positions requiring men alone or filled by either and the selective service instructed to birth day lottery draft according to the needs of each branch. The fact is there are no longer any Private Ryan’s and women are not having enough babies to provide even ONE Private Ryan per mother and if not women will need to step up and provide human resources in the non combat positions in the military, especially in stateside positions. Female privilege was to ensure that women were protected to have children, and women and children were protected for the betterment of society and exempting married women and those with children we recognize their service to the nation by doing so.
It’s time to recognize that both men and women have rights with corresponding responsibilities and also recognize that biologically men and women are different, and while greatly overlapping, with different skill sets based upon biology. And as an added bonus, perhaps if women are required to serve there will be a greater attempt by our government to ensure neither our daughters or sons end up as cannon fodder.
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022, H.R. 4350 passed by the House, wording for equal responsibility for both men and women to register for selective service has been included and forwarded to the Senate. We can expect that, as has occurred in the past, the radical left will remain mostly silent and allow the conservative right to be vocal and derail equal responsibility for defense of the country.
Many of you may not be aware, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the National Coalition For Men V. Selective Service System lawsuit deferring to Congress to act. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommended ending male only selective service registration stating, “[m]ale-only registration sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.” In spite of this recommendation, last years NDAA was modified in the Senate to remove responsibility for females to register for the draft.
For those of us who believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all U.S. Citizen’s this is a non partisan issue and as such Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike should be voicing their support for equal rights. With SCOTUS punting the issue our remaining avenue to achieve equality is to move this legislation past those in the Senate who are blocking this legislation. As such I encourage all to contact their Senators in support of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my (Mississippi) Senators modified as a template for your use in whole or in part. My Senators are both Republican so I framed my argument from that perspective and you should modify your argument to fit your views and convince your Senators.
Date:___________________
Senator _________________, and Senator________________,
Dear Senators;
I am writing in support of equal protection under the law. Specifically, Selective Service (SS) Registration which is mandatory for males but excludes females, a fact which would be corrected under the recently proposed NDAA. Through the years the right to vote has been limited to citizen’s and tied to the responsibility to defend the country and homeland, a history of such is here for those unfamiliar, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/. Today we are giving the benefit of citizenship to non citizen illegal aliens and the right to vote to females with no corresponding responsibility and in some local elections also the right to vote for illegal aliens with no corresponding responsibility.
Let me first address the fear purveyors who have responded to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women with the usual “daughters will end up being cannon fodder,” the “it will undermine unit cohesiveness and effectiveness,” and the added the inflammatory to protect the helpless women, “pregnant women will be forced into the military” portraying equal responsibility to country as a left wing anti-family agenda. Chauvinistic male chivalry and feminist gynocentrism walk hand in hand in the objections for females registering. Ironically, the radical feminist left remains publicly silent on the “equality” issue while letting Republican’s carry their water, dividing Republican’s on the issue. This propagandist rhetoric flies in the face of fact and common sense when we separate selective service from military service and assignment to duties for those drafted.
The forced registration with selective service carries with it severe penalties for non compliance, including some of the benefits granted to citizens, and individual rights up to and including possible incarceration, at this time applied only to men. Those males that are unable to serve in a front line combat role due to physical or mental ability, and those that will not be called up due to manpower needs being met, are NOT excused from registering as it is at the time of need that we determine each ones ability to serve in what capacity. To require men to register who will not be called to serve, with no corresponding requirement for women to register and be subjected to penalties for not doing so, creates an arbitrary and capricious unequal treatment under the law as a male physically unfit for combat duty and a female physically unfit for combat duty are treated differently in spite of equal inability to perform. Registration of men only is discriminatory and on its face unconstitutional. As such, registration needs to be applied to all male and female citizen’s with them both being subjected to the same penalties for non registration or the requirement for registration eliminated.
Prior to the Vietnam era the draft was run by local boards with exemptions for those in college. During Vietnam this was found to be discriminatory as minorities were disproportionately drafted and the SS instituted a lottery draft based upon date of birth to correct this. Historically SS has had exemptions from service such as the sole financial provider for a family. I expect that SS would develop rules and regulations regarding the exemption or deferment of pregnant females and parents solely, or jointly, responsible for the care of a child. And just as the last remaining son historically was restricted to non combat duty, parents of young children could also be similarly treated and any legislation should properly indicate this.
In any discussion of the military it is important to understand that it takes many persons to keep one person in front line combat. In today’s military only 10% of personnel are in a war zone and only a small percentage of these are front line combat troops. A major war with a major power would certainly increase the percentage of front line troops directly in harms way including those not assigned to combat roles. While I do not intend to belittle those who serve in any fashion the fact of the matter is that even in the worst of conditions most will not be in danger of being “cannon fodder” unless we were in a major war against a world power threatening the US itself and in such instance the entire US population would be in danger justifying all who can to serve in defense of the homeland.
The military service assignments are (supposed to be) based upon merit and ability. Many persons in the Military are in positions that they had not primarily been trained for as if there was a need for manpower and they show an aptitude to perform the duties required they are reassigned. The argument that women are smaller and weaker than their male counterparts only means that those who are will be placed into non physically demanding assignments consistent with their abilities, which is already done for males. How is it equitable and right to draft a 19 year old black male with a high school diploma and make him a cook serving stateside while exempting a white female 19 year old from being drafted to be a cook stateside?
The argument that drafting females will undermine unit cohesiveness and ability flies in the face of the fact that women are already allowed into combat positions. That argument means that the current military is already incapable of performing its duties. If drafting women would cause this is true then the argument is made that women should be restricted from joining the military to begin with. You simply cannot make one argument without the other. The fact is that 83% of the jobs in the military are non combat and can be performed equally by males and females with an aptitude for that position. In addition to combat roles it is reasonable that more men would be serving in strength necessary positions such as laborers moving heavy supplies and materials as they have the ability to do so. But this should NOT be an excuse to exclude the females who can perform those duties.
In an effort to show that women are “equal” to men in outcome I fear and believe that standards were reduced for military personnel. But this is a military command and performance problem, not an equal responsibility when it comes to the draft problem. Both men and women in an unprepared military, indeed also the citizen’s they are sworn to protect, will suffer the consequences of improper training, drafted or volunteer alike. The critical feminist theory and the woke critical race theory which is infecting the military is a readiness issue that needs to be addressed by Congress. Indeed, an unprepared military which suffers personnel losses in conflict supports the need to draft all able bodied and competent men and women to defend the country.
The military is increasingly full of high tech careers driven by mechanization and electronics. Women are now 65% of college graduates and it seems to be a waste of talent to exclude them from these high tech positions which do not require strength to perform. How is the military served by drafting a male college graduate to sit in a facility in Nevada and fly a drone while we pass over a similarly educated and able bodied female college graduate? Females also disproportionately enter the medical care fields. Are we to exclude these very necessary personnel from the draft which will require the positions to be filled by men, many having the abilities to perform front line duties?
The short sighted view that we will not need females to serve in defense of the country ignores the fact that war with one or more super powers may result in our country being attacked. Communist China, our greatest adversary, has over a billion more people than the US, 2 million already in the military (600,000 more than the US), and 35 million excess males with which to draw on in a major conflict. Conflict with China opens the door to opportunistic conflict with Russia. Hostilities with China or Russia, or BOTH, are certain to put our Pacific territories, Hawaii, and Alaska in danger and even the West coast of the continental US. Are we going to draft 50 and 60 year old males for homeland defense against invasion while leaving 20 and 30 year old able bodied females to sit home and do nothing?
The gynocentric “daughters will end up cannon fodder” argument shows a value being placed upon females while showing a misandrist view towards “expendable” men. Simply, why would your son being used for cannon fodder be acceptable and why is ones son required to sacrifice while the daughter not? It is also contrary to the US Constitution, SCOTUS aside which bypassed the issue and punted to Congress (who also failed to uphold equal protection under the law in the last NDAA). But just as discrimination against minority men during Vietnam resulted in reduced combat effectiveness so too will discrimination against men in future conflicts. And how is discrimination against men not discrimination against the subset minority men?
The US already has a lack of patriotic support for our Constitutional Republic and Country problem. 50% of Democrats polled stated that if the country was invaded they would flee instead of fighting for the homeland. As during Vietnam one would expect a large portion of them, unwilling to stand against invasion, would dodge a draft forcing them to serve and fight overseas. Especially with the precedent that a future President will issue a blanket pardon for their illegal actions. Woke ideology is driving Conservatives and Christians from the military, these categories fostering many who volunteered to serve negating the need for a draft. All branches of service are now report having recruitment problems and recruitment goals are being missed. Clearly the patriotic are avoiding a hostile military work environment. And the millions of illegal aliens entering the US, male and female, are by circumstance excluded from defending the homeland, here for the benefit but not the responsibility, nor loyalty to the Republic.
Excluding females and draft dodgers from the draft leaves about 4% of the entire US population, roughly 13.5 million males aged 18-25 years old to fight in defense of the country. How long before a male blue collar carpenter realizes he has been forced to dodge bullets while another 18-25 male dodges his responsibility to the US in Canada? How long before a minority male realizes he is being pounded by artillery while his job at the furniture factory pounding nails is being filled by a male illegal alien, enjoying the benefit of citizenship at the citizens expense? How long before a male college graduate realizes he is forced to lead a combat platoon into battle before he realizes his counterpart female college graduate is working her way up the corporate leadership ladder, a non dangerous career path he wasn’t allowed to get on? Discriminatory draft policies undermined military effectiveness in Vietnam and we are forgetting our history and dooming ourselves to repeat it.
If the federal government is going to maintain a data base of possible persons required to serve in the time of need they need to apply it to men and women alike with the same penalties for avoiding the registration. At the time of induction, which should be based upon manpower needs, the person should then be separated into military basic training for ALL and then individual Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training based upon aptitude and ability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm) lists one category (MOS class) for combat personnel (164,000, about 17% of military personnel in 2021) and 12 for non combat personnel (970,584 personnel in 2021). Certainly minimum mental aptitude and physical qualifications have been developed for each specialty, as previously stated most being able to be completed by men and women regardless of sex according to the abilities of the individual.
As early as WW II the US Government used females in support roles in non combat areas to free up men to fill the personnel needs in combat areas. I am not suggesting that females be universally excluded and restricted from hostile combat areas but inversely I am also arguing that they should not be universally included. The MOS and units where men and women work side by side should be based upon effectiveness and if women should reduce the effectiveness of a unit involving males, or men reduce effectiveness of a unit involving females (a factor not even looked at) unit staffing should be then adjusted according to sex, but not otherwise.
Regarding standards for each MOS, as previously stated they should be based upon the minimum qualification needed to complete the tasks and assignments at hand and, absent unit cohesion issues as stated above, sex of the individual should not be considered. All should be required to serve but each according to their ability to serve the needs of the entirety and complete the tasks, goals, and objectives of the unit. The failure to recognize the importance of support roles undermines the ability of the whole to achieve the objectives.
By requiring all to register for selective service we would be supporting patriotism and announcing that all have a duty to OUR country in the of need. We would also be valuing past, present, and future sacrifices of each and every individual who has served, in any capacity, our country in the time of need. It would also be upholding the view that we are all created equal, with equal rights and responsibilities under the US Constitution which is what brings us together in common as citizens of this Republic.
The only failure of our Constitution has been a failure to apply it equally to all persons individually for the God given rights it defines, rights which come with a corresponding responsibility to the Constitution and the individual citizen’s of this country. The extension of the rights of citizenship without the corresponding responsibility to serve equally, each according to their ability, is undermining allegiance to the Constitution and to this Republic, and to each other. I encourage you to stop the sexist bias which undermines our military and make selective service equal for all.
