NCFM PRESS RELEASE: WE WON!
The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is pleased with the court’s decision in NCFM v. Selective Service. Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more.
“Women are now allowed in combat, so this decision is long overdue,” said Marc Angelucci, attorney for NCFM. “After decades of sex discrimination against men in the Selective Service, the courts have finally found it unconstitutional to force only men to register. Even without a draft, men still face prison, fines, and denial of federal loans for not registering or for not updating the government of their whereabouts. Since women will be required to register with the Selective Service, they should face the same repercussions as men for any noncompliance.”
You can read the decision here: 190224 SELECTIVE SERVICE DECISION full
Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, 626-319-3081
Marc E. Angelucci
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 6414
Crestline, CA 92325
Phone (626) 319-3081
Fax: (626) 236-4127
Marc.Angelucci@yahoo.com
NCFM PRESS RELEASE: NCFM wins Selective Service System case. Court rules requiring only men to register unconstitutional
I agree with HQR3. This is a victory, however, but it will result in further discrimination against male service members under its rubric. Under this rubric men will become at best 2nd class military citizens (cannon fodder) just as the feminists would have us in society in general (who does the most undesirable, dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs in society in general – the “death professions”). Women need to be compelled into combat whether or not they like it, and so in equal numbers, the same as men are.
[from 2/28/19]
I would not be so celebratory just yet.
Even should justice prevail, and women are required to be subject to the draft just as men are, this may become a pyrrhic victory at best. The goal of true equality should be women being drafted into combat. Otherwise, male draftees face a very unequal outcome. All or most of the noncombatant positions, the positions that proved soldiers with marketable skills in civilian life, will be filled by women, “freeing” male soldiers to become cannon fodder. Coupled with the educational disparity that now exists, one can foresee a workplace even more completely dominated by women in skilled employment. Add to that more PTSD-inflicted males vying for low-paying menial jobs.
Of course, one doesn’t want to compromise the efficiency of the military by integrating physically less able women into the infantry. However, women can ably serve in sex-segregated units with a different albeit similar function. The men’s units could be the forward ones that take territory and directly confront the enemy; the women’s units, in larger numbers, could be used to hold the gains, occupiers.
I’m no military expert, maybe my idea doesn’t make practical sense; but I do know that if drafting women doesn’t include combat, it will turn out worse for men. That wouldn’t be equality.
Hi HQR3
You’re spot on with your comment, I put a similar comment on a NCFM article about 3 years ago except I stopped at ‘safe’ jobs, I did not follow it through to your conclusion. You are right, legal, medical, administration, office work, cooking, data analysts together with logistics and stores, where men will be consigned to the grunt work on the loading dock will have more relevance in civilian life than knowing how to stand behind a machine gun killing people. However, the Selective Service Scheme is only a list, and it is the burdens and restrictions that are the issue.
The answer maybe to leave it as it is and remove the female right to vote, that of course will also remove the obligation (burden) to serve on juries, the other marker for full citizenship.
Somehow, I don’t think women will accept that, like they accepted the privilege of been exempted from the SSS.
I agree with HQR3. This is a victory and NCFM should feel good about it, but it will allow further discrimination against male service members, who already have sacraficed far more in defense of their country than females, under its rubric, and men, again, will become at best 2nd class military citizens (cannot fodder). Women need to be compelled into combat whether or not they like it, and so in equal numbers. If they are not “physically fit” for combat, they need to be beffed-up and then compelled.
Kate, the response to Tammy above referencing misandry albeit exceptionally gentle, was true beyond description of what’s going on today. The “movement” is no longer looking to elevate women, instead, it seeks only to lower men. If a man drinks too much, he can very easily be arrested for a whole number charges. If a women drinks too much, well, she’s having a good time. If she has consentual sex, she can then say “I was under the influence so I was not responsible for my actions”….. the man is arrested. IF this made any sense at all, then why don’t women who get arrested for DWI just tell the judge that they’re “not responsible because I was drunk”. Well? The answer is embarrasingly simple……. there is no male interaction per se at her DWI trial. In other words, she is weaponized, her misandry is so intense that she WILL put the man in jail for consentual sex if one of her friends (who doesn’t have sex) tells her it’s “equality” to arrest men without cause. Look what happend to the Boy Scouts, there are ALL GIRL troops now!…. but it’s illegal for boys to join the Girl Scouts, neve mind have an all boy Girl Scout troop. Fairness? Equality? ha!
Dear Tom,
I came here to learn more and to listen to another perspective other than my own or like-minded people. It is true that there are aspects of the women’s movement that are more extreme than equality. I don’t align with that. Men have been elevated for the entire nation’s history, our constitution does not bar gender discrimination, this has the potential to affect men as well as women. There are shifts in our society that some men are not willing to accept some men are. Women make up half of all breadwinners, their families need their contribution. Single parents (male or female) are a group that needs to prioritize their choices for themselves without facing burdens imposed by society. My hope is that men and women can be free to make choices that fit their needs, to have kids or not, to marry or not, to work in their chosen profession and have their potential utilized on merit, and to experience the world free of harassment and discrimination for these choices. Your capitalized “IF” could be taken as a dig at my intelligence or just a way of emphasizing your statement, since I don’t know you or your intention, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I understand what you are saying, that there are cases where a charge of rape follows a night of drunk sex and because it requires male interaction women cry rape when they have the opportunity. Men do face these accusations and sometimes long after the event, that is hard, the damage of an accusation can be devastating whether it is true or false. It is difficult to understand if time has passed and the accuser can be seen as an opportunist if the man has risen in wealth or esteem. However, the two adults in your case both made a decision, if she and he both consent, no rape. If either one or both were too drunk to consent someone was raped, or they raped each other. Your conclusion that a “weaponized” misandry brings about rape charges after conferring with a friend who has not had sex, strange detour, lacks a true understanding of and empathizing with both individuals in this scenario. I think you have a one sided view and need to examine this from the perspective of the unhappy female. The effort required by the accuser to reach justice is a long haul for some level of “equality”. This is not about equality but two individuals and their interaction. From my perspective as a woman, women would like to enjoy sex, to be free to have it with whom they choose. They want their partner to communicate and to know that nothing will happen without their agreement likewise they won’t do things to him without his agreement. They want an enjoyable experience for themselves and their partner. Trust is a key component. Participants must think with a customer service mindset, if both people are satisfied with the interaction there is no need for a complaint, if one person is not treated the way they want to be treated there is the opportunity for misunderstanding and a complaint including when someone wants to end the encounter. This may also be a good time to consider if men should be willing to have casual sex with drunk women, given the risks they face. Women face the risk of disease, bodily harm, and pregnancy. Men face the risk of disease and legal action with the potential for paternity disputes later. Men can assert control over their biological motivation to procreate when the opportunity to do so is not desirable, they retain this choice. I can agree there are false charges of rape, but the majority are true and the burden of proof if the perpetrator is even caught results in justice in rare cases, 7 in 1000 result in conviction less than 1%. Many cases are not prosecuted for lack of evidence, verbal he said she said testimony often with the influence of alcohol. There is no benefit to filing charges, only costs in finances, time, emotional energy, and credibility. No equality is achieved through the example you cite, if she is lying let it be found out and she can face charges of false report, defamation. Turning to the Boy Scouts, they are a private group and made that decision for their organization, currently 2.4 million scouts, 3000 girls. No, you won’t find boys in Girl Scouts because they are also a private organization set to govern themselves as they see fit. I came here to find opinions and develop mine, to listen to another perspective and see if there was anything about this topic I had not considered. I ask you to do the same, listen to different voices, you don’t have to agree with me or anyone else. All I ask is that you try to see it from a different perspective and appreciate why they might have a different opinion. Thanks for your perspective. Have a good day.
Most rape victims are male-assigned. 40% or more of non-insitutional rapes are committed by a female-assigned perpetrator.
Cis*women still only make up less than 1% of people in prison for rape.
Most reproductive coercion victims are male-assigned, and they face FAR GREATER risk, since a full-time job is 4 times as likely to cause death in a year as a pregnancy is, but keep pretending that a 1 in 10,000 death rate per pregnancy is a good reason to throw rape victims in prison.
Your myopia is what offends people, including this survivor.
This is great. Now let’s get the constitution to recognize women as equal. If this is being done truly for the sake of equality, the era should have no problem passing now. Fair is fair. All men and women, though different, are created equal
Tammy,
We agree, with some exception. The original efforts to establish an Equal Rights Amendment would have given equal rights to all of us. The current ERA movement and its legislation extends rights only to women and diminishes them for men. The current effort is propelled by misandry rather then any true desire toward equal treatment.
Please elaborate. Has the wording of the ERA been changed since what was proposed in the 1970s?
Mark,
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/equal-rights-amendment-what-is-it.html
Last month when you posted this link, I didn’t have time to follow it and read the NYT article. But now that I have read it, I’m still not sure exactly what your concern is.
I’m wondering if we’re talking about different things. My question was whether the actual text of the ERA is somehow different today than in the 1970s, whereas you seem to be talking about the motives of the movement pushing the resurrection of the ERA, not what the actual wording of the amendment is.
From what the NYT article says, it seems like the wording can’t have changed, because what they’re trying to do now is based on states recently having ratified the old amendment, nearly 4 decades after the deadline for ratification.
The author of the article clearly thinks that the wording only applies to discrimination against women, not men. But if this effort were to result in the ratification of the ERA wording from the 1970s, why would the opinion of one biased NYT writer (or a biased NYT writer plus mobs of biased women and some biased men) carry any weight in the application of the amendment?
I’ve been told by people who know more about law than I do, that courts will often look to the discussions among legislators at the time the law was passed as guidance in how the law should be interpreted. Is your concern that although the words talk about equality for all, it will end up being interpreted in an Orwellian “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” fashion that ignores discrimination against men, because public discussion at the time of ratification failed to speak of discrimination against men?
The ERA was expressly started and is today promoted by feminist organizations. Since its inception and rejection by the states, numerous states have adopted their own versions. In all those states, every one of them, women still have more advantages than do men. There are always individuals and groups of individuals who think they should be treated differently than others, for whatever reasons. Those individuals and groups continually challenge constitutional protections for not just equal treatment but for equal outcomes, especially to increase power, control, and the transfer of wealth. NO ERA will change that. However, had the states ratified the ERA it’s our belief men would be much better off as would be women. While there were several reasons various groups were opposed to the ERA, the principal one was women in the military. It’s interesting that we are still dealing with the military issue even though all military branches are not only open to women but actively recruit for women to join…
Yes, I am for equal treatment and the consequences for men who do not register for SSS are severe so this is a step in the right direction towards equal treatment. I think many of the men who disagree with your lawsuit believe that men take on the noble mantle of defending the nation and their loved ones as a matter of duty you may lose their support if you cannot convince them that women have the same noble calling. Now is the time that women are willing and able to share this burden with their fellow citizens.
I stand with Tammy, get behind the ERA if the work of this organization is truly for equality. It is ironic that the ERA was not passed after the Senate moved to restrict women from the draft. Your organization may help pave the way for an ERA to pass more easily.
Please define the rights that are extended to women but deminished for men by the ERA. Under this language:
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
The misandry you referenced is palpable and often observable, have you representative of NCFM considered its origin, the length, and depth of being marginalized, abused, and openly discriminated against for centuries? I can acknowledge that men face a different edge of discrimination in our modern times (family custody or professional career choices) but white men as a class have never had to fight for any of their rights, I mean the big ones: voting, property ownership, inheritance rights (correct me if I’m wrong here, I trust you will). Men are now fighting through long accepted cultural practices and laws that were deferential to women and forced men to shoulder a burden a woman would not be required to, but over history women have had to entrust men with their personal welfare, health, and fortunes and not all men are good stewards of these resources. Men have never been in the position to be held as property of women (so long as slavery has been abolished). Women were subject to the law but had no input in it for the first 144 years of this country’s existence. Men have never been denied these rights by another group.
Your closing response to Tammy that the current ERA movement is not truly seeking equality is poor, and shows a lack of empathy for women in their fight for equal rights over the history of the movement. Women are openly expressing centuries worth of anger over being treated as less than, asking nicely hasn’t worked. I want to believe you truly seek equality but your tone towards Tammy belies something less noble. If you are truly not in the fight for equality it will be sensed and your organization will be viewed as self-important in the face of so many marginalized groups who have not had the lion’s share of benefits that men have had, eventhough you aim to correct the current imbalances. If you are truly fighting the good fight for equality measure what you say in response to supporters so that your organization can be believed then together we can say, Onwards!
Congratulations to NCFM on this important victory. It is a small but very significant step toward genuine gender equality. Those who would cringe at the thought of their daughter or granddaughter being expected to register for the SSS, yet would not cringe at the thought of their son or grandson being expected to do the same needs to seriously reexamine their values. It is appalling that public discourses of victimization in the United States remain steadfastly committed to excluding men’s and boys’ experiences.
Dr. Hadlock,
Thank you for your comments, although we think this is not a small but very large victory which will help shape our national discussions about many things.
What are the actual ramifications of this case? Will Selective Service actually be forced to change?
Jack,
Thank you. That’s an excellent question. The answer is a resounding yes. However, we don’t know yet exactly how. It’s possible Congress will close the Selective Service or find other ways to treat women deferentially. The SSS system has for years disenfranchised young men who for whatever reasons failed to register. Not one young female has been similarly situated or disenfranchised. Not one. There are many people who think that’s Ok and are Ok with keeping it that way. We think its disgusting, unconstitutional and not in the best interests of any of us.
You would send your mothers into combat against their will.
Remarkable what a 40 year internal dilaog of resentment can cause.
Fifth Dentist,
No. My mother died last year. Otherwise, try this: “You would send your fathers into combat against their will.” Or how about, “You would send your sons into combat against their will.” Think about it. Aside from which, we now have an all volunteer military. If anyone goes into combat, male or female, arguably, they volunteered. It sounds to me that you may have an abscessed tooth which may be impacting your judgement. Regardless, thank you for sharing your thoughts so others can see them.
Fifth Dentist: But you have no problem sending your fathers, sons, and brothers into combat against their will? There could be no better illustration that men in this society are considered disposable.
For this lawsuit, you “men” should be ashamed of yourselves.
Pathetic, triggered and sad that a few women in the service inspires you to feel like such snowflakes.
Just the opposite. The men and women of NCFM are very proud of this very necessary accomplishment.
Fifth Dentist
You sound like a complete idiot. This is about equal rights and responsibilities. We take no position on women in combat.
I would have preferred for the selective service system to get abolish. But then again, this result comes as the next best thing.
Doug,
Hang in there. Congress may yet end the draft rather than require women to register. I suspect you know why too.
This is a big, big win for equal rights for women! Now women, as well as men, have the right to register with the Selective Service System for the military draft.
This is the latest accomplishment by the National Coalition for Men’s advocacy for equal rights for women (and men, because you can’t have equal rights for one sex without having equal rights for the opposite sex.
What a joke, why are you happy about this? Selective service isn’t a right, it’s an obligation of support for our country. Because of you idiots, my daughter is one step closer to having to register for the draft. It was set up unfairly, because men were the ones that bore the most burden during war. My life before my daughters. It’s what most dads do. Obviously not any of you at the NCFM
Will,
I’m not real happy about my grandsons having to register either. Are you saying daughters and grand daughters are more important than our sons and grandsons? Just curious.
The judge could not reasonably rule otherwise given the fact that the military was forced to end discrimination against women and open all specialties to them, a reality for which many women fought very hard. However, this ruling may prompt the government to abolish the Selective Service, though any future conflict that demands conscription will most certainly include women, as it should. I served with women for 10 years and found them to be very capable soldiers.
When I was in my teens, I had to register and I faced an active draft that would have sent me to Viet Nam, and very likely to my death. I only avoided that through the good fortune of drawing a high number in the draft lottery.
Registering for the draft is not a “right”. it’s an obligation, one that until now has been imposed exclusively on young men, while women have had the privilege of not having to register and potentially be coerced into involuntary servitude.
I find it extremely offensive when you spin this as “equal rights for women” is offensive. It’s a matter of women finally being required to submit to equal responsibilities – something they’ve unjustly been permitted to skip out on for ages. It may seem theoretical for now, since the draft is not active. But if the draft is ever reactivated, it sure won’t seem theoretical then.
Mark,
Thank you. “Equal responsibilities” is certainly accurate.
And for those who now call for our support for the ERA, my response is I’ll support an ERRA, but not an ERA. If the Constitution is going to mandate Equal Rights, it should also mandate Equal Responsibilities.
You guys are spineless and should be ashamed of yourselves. The man”s role is to protect the women and children. what you”ve actually done is degrade women by telling them you don”t want to protect them. In fact, you asked them to help you protect yourself.
If my daughter wants to serve that’s fine but she shouldn’t be forced to.
The men in this country are becoming wussified little candy assets and you guys are at the front of the pack wearing dresses.
My daughter may get drafted and you might get out of serving due to your ADHD or asthma.
I honestly can’t believe you did this. I hope you lose sleep over showing the world how simply pathetic you are.
Dave,
We do not engage in name calling. However, we think it’s important for others to see messages like this. So, thank you for sharing your thoughts, even though we obviously disagree.
I assume the word “don’t” was inadvertently dropped, and what you meant to say was, “We don’t engage in name calling.”
Mark,
I saw nothing like this in the press release. Please provide a link to whatever post it is that you are referring to and we’ll take a look.
My comment is a direct reply to a comment from NCFM on February 25, 2019 at 1:15 PM that says:
Dave,
We engage in name calling. However, we think it’s important for others to see messages like this. So, thank you for sharing your thoughts, even though we obviously disagree.
Mark,
Good find. You are absolutely right. There should be a “do not” before “engage.” Thank you.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but after your correction, it now reads “We engage do not engage in …”
Thanks!
You, Dave, are the one degrading women by telling them, that they are not capable of taking care of and protecting themselves. Those women who have fought so hard to be recognized as strong independent women.
You also manage to degrade the male species of the world by telling men that their lives matter less than that of females.
You are the one who should lose sleep over showing the world how simple and pathetic you consider women to be.
Well said, MikeyB.
Well, goodness gracious, next you’ll be advocating for equal pay for equal work! Wonderful! Keep at it, lads!
Yup, in fact we always have.
You guys are not men, you are cowards!
This is a a good start but if you really mean that you consider women equal for combat roles then the era needs to be part of the constitution. Fair is fair. Equal means just that. We can be different but still be equal. No better no worse. Muscles don’t mean superior, just different.
You’re probably unaware that the 1918 Supreme Court decision that the draft did not count as involuntary servitude was based on the fact that men had the vote, and military service was an obligation men took on in return for being able to vote. A mere two years later, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote without imposing any corresponding obligation on them. Women have had a free ride for the past 100 years. All this decision does is correct that injustice. To guarantee that such a thing never happens again, I’ll be happy to support an Amendment that mandates that equal rights for men and women conditional on them also being subjected to equal responsibilities. If you’re good with that, I’m happy to have found an ally.
Congratulations to Marc and the team, will this be the 28th amendment? and should go down in history as the day as full citizenship came to women in the US. (if the SSS is extended). The court has only deemed the law to be unconstitutional. I suppose congress will have to decide if it suspends or extends the SSS. With so many women being elected to congress at the mid-term elections I am guessing that it will be suspended.
Men with wives, daughters, or granddaughters are cringing. I feel you should be ashamed to push this.
You are absolutely wrong. NCFM female members are cheering as are all fair minded individuals. You should read the court decision. It’s important to understand that registration in no way means one will end up in a foxhole. Nor are all men suited for combat. Men and women are needed in many support roles and never get close to a war zone. Aside from which, we personally know women with combat experience, even fighter pilots. Other than meeting the qualifications, if women can freely enter the military they should be required to register for Selective Service. Or, men should not be required too. Not complicated.
Sadly, not all women are as fair-minded as the NCFM female members you mention. I won’t be at all surprised if there’s a backlash from so many women that Congress decides that the only thing they can do that won’t lose them votes is to shut down the Selective Service.
The draft should be abolished. It is unconstitutional. If you men think you won something then I agree with women that all men are idiots!
So are people who do not understand the issues, although “idiot” is a bit strong. Ignorant is more accurate. We, NCFM, is not concerned with whether the draft, that is the Selective Service System, should be abolished; or, not. We are only concerned that our federal government extend equal opportunity and responsibility to all of us. Not complicated.
Joe, this has nothing to do with MEN or WOMENS rights, but the new word of this coming generation is “gender equality”. IF Congress approves, it wouldn’t surprise me, but that will be the extent of it. When men and women go to war, it’s survive, kill, or die. Do you think when we are at war with the enemy is going to be lenient when it captures a woman soldier vs. a man soldier? There are no rules. And they don’t give a damn who, where, or what you are once you’re in the enemies hands. You may be serving your country, but you also have the risk of dying for your country. It’s not a job, or a social club. NCFM; they don’t get it. Being a soldier is not about fairness, its about serving and surviving.
Apparently you don’t understand. If you or others are or were really in the military you well know that not all involved end up in a foxhole. Not all those who serve are fit for combat. However, many men and women in the military not fit for combat still play key support roles. We get that. It amazes us that others don’t. It’s about equal treatment, without which, overtime we, as a country, will not survive.
Oh-bull pucky! I’ve been saying this since 1999 when our son was REQUIRED
to register for selective service. And yes, we also have a daughter!
In fact, it might do our country a world of good if the USA decides to
require ALL physically and mentally able bodied individuals to actually
SERVE at least a couple of years in one of the branches of the military.
WHY NOT? It certainly would teach the present and next generations the
values parents are no longer teaching; discipline,structure, patience,
selflessness,loyalty and a skill they can carry into civilian life.
Mary,
Well said. Doing so may very well teach our present and future generations about many things, including those you mention.
Can’t believe you actually went there. Real men don’t care about sex discrimination against them. I’d rather be discriminated against than risk women getting captured, raped (impregnated), and abused by the enemy. It’s an Alpha Male thing.
“Real men” care about real people, all of them. “Real men” also care about things like due process, fair and equal treatment and the best interests of all of us. What you and many people don’t get is that this case is about those things, not whether women get captured, raped and abused by an enemy. And, just in case you really don’t know it, men in combat get captured, raped and abused by he enemy too. You got us on the impregnated part.
Hey Ben, you perfectly described a gamma, not an alpha. Strongly suspect you’re a feminist that decided to troll.
All men are real (elementary). All persons who would be in the military should accept equal responsibility for their ability to defend themselves, not just accept the benefits of military service. Our society seems to want to give females just the benefits of military service without the risks, and such is blatant sexism.
Congratulations! This was the most vile of all discriminatory practices based on gender still in legislation. It will be the turning point for equality. Even if one believes the draft should be abolished completely, this is the best outcome since it can always be reinstated . At least this way their will always be gender equality if that had to happen.
This is wonderful! As a mother to three boys I have always noticed the discrimination against males. This is a step in the right direction. Good Job!!!
This is a HUGE win. There has been nothing more discriminatory than the men only military draft. Women were the first people to get the vote without being eligible for military service.
It’s about time women took their place as full citizens
Outstanding and congratulations to Marc and the NCFM legal team. This is a precedent setting case that will change human history. I personally believe that the draft registration requirement should be abolished but in lieu of that result this is the next best outcome. Well done.