Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors


April 25, 2013

selective service men and women



Contact: Marc Angelucci, Esq., NCFM Vice President,   626-319-3081

Or, Steven Svoboda, Esq., NCFM PR Director,   925-395-2065




Lawsuit Asserts Department of Defense’s Recent Repeal of Ban on Women in Combat Removes Lone Legal Obstacle for Requiring Women to Register for Draft

Los Angeles (4/4/13) – The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is a non-profit educational organization that advocates for equal rights for men and women.

NCFM has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only males to register for the military draft.  The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN .

The 1981 U.S. Supreme Court equal protection case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) held that men and women were not similarly situated in the U.S. military because women were excluded from combat, therefore women did not have to register for the draft.  Dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ‘ancient canards about the proper role of women’.”

In January, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women will be allowed to enter all combat positions in all branches of the U.S. military, thereby removing the sole legal basis for requiring only males to register for the draft.

NCFM’s complaint alleges that because men and women are now similarly situated in the military, Selective Service’s requirement that only males must register for the draft violates the rights of both men and women to equal treatment under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under United States Code, Title 28, Section 1983.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, calling for the Selective Service to stop discriminating against men and women by requiring both men and women to register for the draft, or by requiring neither to register for the draft.

Men failing to register for the draft can be fined up to $250,000, sentenced to up to five years in prison, and denied eligibility for federal and state benefits including jobs, financial aid, citizenship, loans, and job training.  Only men now face these harsh penalties.

NCFM calls on the Obama Administration and Congress to end the institutional sex discrimination that requires only men to register for the draft.  The ancient canard is gone, because women are now eligible for combat roles in all branches of the U.S. military.  There is no longer any legal justification for continuing the unequal treatment of our draft age population based solely on their gender.  The Selective Service System should treat men and women equally, including imposing penalties against both men and women for failing to register.


 Read the complaint at :

4/9/2013: BING News,  “National Coalition For Men” And “Selective Service”


4/9/2013: Yahoo Answers, Feminists: Do you believe that this is a step towards gender equality

4/9/2013: Yahoo News, National Coalition For Men Sues Selective Service for Requiring Only Men to Register for the Draft

4/5/2013: REDEDIT, MENSRIGHTS, NCFM sues selective service for requiring only men to register for the draft

4/5/2013: Metropolitan News Enterprise, Los Angeles, Group Sues Over Lack of Draft Registration for Women

4/5/2013: A Voice For Men, NCFM calls for equality in selective service


4/5/2013: EWCRLDWIRE, Gender Equality in Selective Service Called for by National Coalition For Men

4/5/1013: PRFree, Gender Equality in Selective Service Called for by National Coalition For Men

4/4/2013: The Counter Feminst, NCFM Sues the Selective Service Regarding the Male-Only Draft.


National Coalition For Men (NCFM), 932 C Street, Suite B, San Diego, CA 92101


Both men and  women should register for Selective Service.

The Selective Service System should be gender inclusive.

Tags: , , , , ,


  1. […] dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall called the law “one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ancient canards about the proper role of […]

  2. […] National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had filed a lawsuit against male only selective service registration based upon equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. […]

  3. Lasha Vaysband on December 30, 2016 at 8:22 PM

    america gavernment 83-1944457-9 selected services and army
    year 2016 is strong congress part of watching from satalite black knite i have a letter to the president lunch if u think its not orchard

  4. Ryan on February 3, 2016 at 12:54 PM

    There is no need to sign up for the draft. We already have social security numbers. If there was a draft they could call on us by our SS number. This is just a tool to discriminate against men. Being punished the rest of there life for a mistake they made earlier.

  5. Salmo on January 31, 2016 at 3:53 PM

    Glad to see you guys finally caught up with the ACLU and the NOW, who filed the same lawsuit 35 years ago.

  6. Scott Kohlhaas on July 26, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    Any lawsuit against selective slavery is a good thing. However, if this leads to the registration of women, well, then it went horribly wrong. I can see the discrimination in selective service, but the answer is not to increase the pool of slaves by including women. The answer is to free men and everyone from the threat of conscription by ending registration and abolishing the selective service system. Please visit for more information on the draft.

  7. Gary Costanza on May 3, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    Great job guys. See my views at:

  8. on April 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Men should be proud to fight for their country but when men are denied access to housing
    and programs due to their gender and race something is wrong. Ask Vets, black and hispanic men in ghettos where they live when they have no kids.

    I believe Men Rights activist should pursue human rights for men we live in time where we are busy working to give gay people housing. How many men though that are Vets live in projects. How
    many non english speaking people that have kids get housing when they comr here.

    I am not against gays I am now gay myself. I am not against women just have had no use of them especially with the trash we pay our people my god how can a man even have a relationship with a tranny on 7.50 an hour its garbage. absolute trash.

    And to think the poor and uneducated do the same stupid things that create no change or even get
    noticed.Hope u guys can change this policy because vets on the street are looked down by the community as trash.

  9. MGTOW-man on April 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    Feminism has NEVER been about equality. It has always been for superiority for women. That is why they were not so disappointed with the Supreme Courts shallow, baseless, silly “decision” (chivalry/excuses) based on “not being situated similarly”. It is stupid and telling that women were excluded from draft registrstion. What? They couldn’t at least be conscripted to serve in support roles… which is 7 support soldiers for every fighting one, not two, as commented above. At least women would have been safer in the rear, which is chivalrous enough. Remember, feminism has always been a ruse for equality. The vote plus the natural dynamics between men and women = superiority for women. Commonsense. That is why male traitors have been duped and made into had-suckers and customers. It is time to get boys to rethink the necessity of women/kids for the attainment of manhood. In a world where everything has changed, why should men be the only thing that hasn’t?

    Require women to be registered/punished equally for failure, else men should take to the streets in peaceful protest. Real men WILL!!!

  10. Feminist_Nullificationist on April 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    Where are all the feminists NOW?

  11. Stephen on April 19, 2013 at 11:31 PM

    This is insane. Do you not realize that the myth of equality of the sexes is the scourge of the modern world? The failure to recognize male superiority has utterly condemned women to work force slavery and absence from their proper sphere, the home, where a husband provides for and protects her. The violation of nature called feminism / egalitarianism has lied to women and is destroying them even as they defend it. Come to the Traditional Women’s Rights blog and see the folly of this nonsense.

    • Maria on May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM

      The sentence to describe you is as such:
      “A feeble minded individual you are to type these words”!

  12. Ailene on April 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM

    Seems like a Pyrrhic victory for women

  13. Paul Goodwin on April 14, 2013 at 8:25 AM

    I wrote a play about this very subject! As far as people objecting as if it is a new concept, look to Israel and the history of Russia during WWII.

  14. Ron Ator on April 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    I signed up for selective service in 1980 and could not understand why feminist groups were not marching on Washington D.C. because of this inequality. That is when I truly understood hypocrisy.

  15. Burton on April 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    How many people here have seen the movie “Saving Private Ryan?” Now imagine the opening scene, storming the Normandy beaches on D-Day, with 51% of the infantry women. Seriously, how would that work out? If, as we are told, gender-is-just-a-construct(tm) then there would be no problem. But what if it turns out that there really are inherent differences between males and females? And that no amount of indoctrination or training can overcome them? Would we see a co-ed infantry army fall apart at the first shot?

    One way to find out would be to test out the concept in actual combat. Take a small unit, perhaps a company (c. 200 infantry), compose it of 51% female troops and 49% males (to reflect societal sex ratios). Then commit it to some action in any of the ongoing American wars. Afterwards, evaluate what happened. If it works, fine. If not…then perhaps it is time to rethink the entire business of sexual equality.

    Thing is, being a warrior is not a job. Much of it is innate. Much of it is the product of male group dynamics. Following the lead of alpha personality types. Having a shared experience with your team mates. The willingness to confront fear and death and not back down. What’s often termed “unit cohesion.”

    Anyway, be interesting to see how this plays out.

    • C.V. Compton Shaw on April 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM

      The XIX (19th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920) which gave women the right to vote did not contemplate women being required, as a requisite of this right, to perform mandatory military service inclusive of combat duty.
      However, in effect, this amendment has given women an electoral majority in the U.S.A. over men that has been increasing.
      As per a quote from the Chapter of this book of Government and Feminism:

      “Male voting rates have declined sharply since the mid-1960s i.e. the beginning of the Matriarchal social and political construct (feminism).
      Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections, the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent.
      Because the USA has a winner take all, bought, and gerrymandered form of electoral representation, the female absolute and electoral majority has a disproportionately adverse affect on male political representation, male rights, and male equality.
      The female vote makes up approximately 54-56% of the total in the U.S.A..
      This results in a political framework that produces a socio-political-economic-legal that is essentially matrifocal,gynocentric, and Matriarchal.”

      The aforementioned makes American men and the men of other democratic nations virtual slaves to the aforementioned feminist electoral majority’s foreign policy,military, and defense related objectives and means.
      In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male only conscription violate men’s rights to equal protection under the US Constitution. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men’s rights group and multiple women’s groups including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act stating that “the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of it’s Constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.” (Wikipedia-Mens Rights)
      This, in itself, is EXTREMELY unjust, oppressive, and discriminatory towards men.
      The personal, economic, cultural, and political attack, led by feminists and their male feminist supporters, on returning Vietnam Veterans was motivated, according to psychologists, by the impression by women that Vietnam Veterans represented “the strong male image”.
      Should women and minorities have preference in employment, education, and other wise over returning war veterans, inclusive of combat veterans?
      Our nation and our government determined, by law and custom that they should.
      This is what returning Vietnam Veterans faced.
      Should Vietnam Veterans, in fact, be actively discriminated against in employment, education, and otherwise?
      Yes, this is what our nation and our government determined, by law, and custom that they should.
      The image of the aggressive feminist associating with long haired effeminate base men for the purpose of denigrating returning Vietnam Veterans and all men of character remains a shameful part of our current and past history and culture.
      The very organized,aggressive, demeaning,unprincipled, discriminatory and sexist attacks on returning Vietnam Veterans in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s by feminists set the pattern for the aggressive, unprincipled,organized, and discriminatory attacks by feminists on men subsequent to the same. In other words, the most efficacious means for feminists to obtain their misandric goals is to DESTROY those that oppose them or that they perceive as having the character and/or motivation to do the same.

      In this author’s opinion, the fact that women were not required to serve in the military nor the combat arms, although they had the same right to vote as these men who sacrificed so much, encouraged an arrogant, predatory, demeaning, exploitative, and discriminatory attitude towards Vietnam Veterans.
      Further, the fact that women and others, although they do not have to serve in the military, are the electoral majority results in the fact that this same majority unjustly determines when this nation goes to war, how the war is to be fought, and how the returning veteran is to be treated.
      This results in the initiation of unwise and unnecessary wars, unwise military strategies, the oppressive exploitation of those in the military, and the initiation of wars motivated by the selfish and unjust motives of this feminist electoral majority.
      Should an electoral majority, which, by law, is determined to be too weak or base to serve in the military, inclusive of the combat arms and/or is unwilling and/or unable to serve in such a capacity, have the right to determine when and how a nation is to engage in military operations, inclusive of war, and how the returning veteran is to be treated?
      Of course not. Our present system gives the electoral majority that does not serve, women and others, the means and motive to exploit and denigrate men who serve in the military. Again, this was exemplified in the War in Vietnam and the hostile, insulting, and discriminatory treatment that Vietnam Veterans received by the same individuals and groups, women and others, which were exempt from and/or avoided said service and who, at the same time, demanded and received preferential treatment in employment, education, and law over returning Vietnam veterans, even combat veterans.
      Men should refuse to serve in the military in the USA and other nations unless there is a reasonable correlation between military service, especially mandatory military service (the military draft) and electoral representation (the right to vote) and until those other republican principles (equal rights and equal responsibilities for all citizens-no more affirmative action) are restored.
      This same electoral majority, unwilling and/or unable to serve in the U.S. Military, granted itself preference by law and custom in employment, education, the law, the receipt of social services and by other means, both overt and covert, EVEN OVER RETURNING COMBAT VETERANS.
      The aforementioned results in an abusive, offensive, denigrating, oppressive, and discriminatory attitude by American women not only towards American military veterans but towards all men, especially men who demonstrate the traditional male virtues.
      This aggressive and unprincipled attack on returning Vietnam Veterans, as the “strong male image” was merely the initial assault on those American men, by feminists, both male and female, who demonstrated any of the traditional male virtues.
      It continues in all spheres of American life.
      American women have found it to be politically, economically, socially, and culturally advantageous for them to form alliances with base and weak men for the purpose of dominating and exploiting men who have the traditional male virtues.
      As per the experience of the returning Vietnam Veteran, the same alliance continues to this date with the result that the traditional male culture in the U.S.A. has been destroyed.
      No wonder that men from foreign countries routinely laugh at the effeminate nature of American men who have been degraded out of fear, obedience, and the shame of being men from our women who have made to feel guilty for just being men.
      Metrosexual, base, and effeminate men have become de rigeur welcome, nourished, made safe, and have become “politically correct’ in American Society and in the eyes of the law.
      Manly behavior is NOT.
      Every single foreign war the U.S.A. has entered into in the past 50 years has progressively been less and less effective.
      The U.S.A. no longer seems able to win a difficult war with decisiveness and efficiency.
      The military justice system, in the name of “political correctness”, has run amok, where even the most base, lying, evil, insecure, mercenary, violent, and selfish women, some of whom have been officially proven to be so, can easily destroy good soldiers of proven great courage, great character, great patriotism, honor, and respect.
      The men of our armed forces are no match psychologically, emotionally, or spiritual for most men of foreign nations.

      • NCFM on April 15, 2013 at 3:12 PM


        Thank you for taking the time to submit a well considered post.

  16. Burton on April 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM

    How about an affirmative action draft for women? I am sure that feminists will consider this to be “fair” to right the wrongs of the past. Just think of all the power that women will gain as a result of being conscripted into combat arms.

  17. Marc on April 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM


  18. Tom W on April 5, 2013 at 10:57 PM

    Go for it

  19. Zorro on April 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM


  20. Sue on April 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    Great lawsuit! You can only have equal rights for women if you have equal rights for men.

  21. fred45 on April 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    Equal opportunity, equal pay, equal responsibility.

  22. Jay Hamilton on April 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM

    First, men and women WERE similarly situated in the military before as most military personnel are non combatants, it takes 2 support personnel to keep one person fighting. That said, it is disgraceful that women were not required to register and if the femimarxists wer serious about equality they would have pushed for inclusion.

  23. mensacvocate on April 5, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    men should be treated better

  24. Mike McCormick on April 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    HOO – YAH, Absolutely brilliant. The gender biased nature of this selective service requirement would be obvious to a blind man, or feminist, or lesbian, or homosexual, or transgendered individual, or straight person, or queer and questioning persons, or anyone over the age of 18 who draws breath. Maybe even a politician, but then again, maybe not. Errr..sorry didn’t mean to get carried away with that last one.

  25. chris on April 4, 2013 at 11:01 PM

    Best news of the decade for men’s equality. I really hope the NCFM challenges NOW for support. NOW has a 1980’s statement on it’s website stating that it supports equality in the draft. Lets see now if they really meant it since they knew it would never happen back then

  26. Elena on April 4, 2013 at 10:13 PM

    Good job guys !! Bravo !!!

    Cheers from Canada .

  27. NCFM on April 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM

    Ray says, “I love the M-16 strapped to the back of the “Rosie the Riveter” image. That’s absolutely priceless, given what a feminist icon that image has become. You’ve come a long way Rosie – now register her for the draft, or don’t ask men to do it.”

    • Male Matters USA on April 5, 2013 at 7:36 AM

      This is great, Harry. Congrats on a historic move.

    • sue on April 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM

      Great Comment.

  28. Feminist_Nullificationist on April 4, 2013 at 5:11 PM

    I love the M-16 strapped to the back of the “Rosie the Riveter” image. That’s absolutely priceless, given what a feminist icon that image has become. You’ve come a long way Rosie – now register her for the draft, or don’t ask men to do it.

  29. Feminist_Nullificationist on April 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    Whoa, Nelly!!! This should make for some interesting conversations in our less than friendly main stream media.

  30. Ninderthana on April 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    Wonderful news! NCFM is the greatest organization in the world for defending men’s and boy’s rights. This makes every penny I have spent on NCFM membership over the years worth it! Finally, a chance for men to have real equality. This gives me hope that things will eventually change and that some day men will actually be treated as full human beings.

  31. zulu127 on April 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Hopefully this will do away with selective sevice altogether but more than likely some way will be found to weasel out of this one. Either way, kudos to you for pressing for true equal rights.

  32. 100%Cotton on April 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM

    I was going to sign up for Selective Service with my sons when they turned 18 until I read on the back of the card that women who registered for the draft can be fined up to $250,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison. I had already signed up and served during Vietnam and figured my sons would need that $250,000.00 for college more than for bailing his goofy Mom out of prison. This is a great day for equality.

  33. Paul Elam on April 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    Great work! Deepest respects to the men and women of NCFM.

  34. Bob Yourell on April 4, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    I hope that the folks that are inclined to scorn this move will realize that this is part of a bigger picture–it’s about making everyone, male and female, less subject to discrimination. And maybe if women are subject to the draft, it will create more pressure to think twice before starting wars for capitalists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.