Women must join selective service (1 Viewer)

[scotty2260]

This isn't what you may think...
I am in high school and my team and I have randomly been assigned a topic to debate about. We were told we have to argue that women should have to sign up for the draft at 18, like men.


I was wondering if anyone could help me by posting some things you might think we could argue about.

We already have that women want to be equal and everything like that.

PLEASE DONT post about your personal opinion. Again, we were randomly assigned this topic and what side we had to argue. We just need some point to base a debate on.

Thanks!

 

[Pacridge]

Welcome to Debate Politics.


What about equal rights laws? It's not legal to discriminate based on gender is it? Then how is it legal that only one sex must register?

 

[Squawker]

Pull up a chair and sit a spell, Scotty.

We were told we have to argue that women should have to sign up for the draft at 18, like men.

You can't argue the other position? That they shouldn't have to? That would be easier. lol The sign up isn't really for a "draft". It is more for the recruiters. The service does provide young women as well as men, an opportunity outside of going to college right off.

 

[gypsy0032]

Pac nailed it. Based on nondiscrimination laws, women should sign up for selective service.

 

[scotty2260]

Ok, thanks for your opinions! I agree the other side would have been much easier to argue... but it was all chosen for us, which side to argue and all.

I think the main problem we are having is: we need 6 people to talk, and only a couple people should talk about the equality aspect of it. What other reasons are there?
I have researched and found that the military does in fact need women, as 90% of nurses are women. So that gives us another speaker.

Can anyone think of anything based on something other than equality? Thanks again!

 

[Squawker]

The only other argument is from a parents point of view. Help them grow up, discipline, that type of thing -- same as for men.

 

[ShamMol]

I sorta agree, the other arguemnt of instilling discipline and a patriotic duty is important, but the main reason has to remain equality. As long as they meet minimal requirements if and when there is a draft (not hard to meet), then they would have to participate equally with men.

 

[Contrarian]

Welcome Scotty.... There is another angle here. The Army and Marines are falling far short of their enlistment quotas. As a result they have increased the top enlistment age from 34 to 39 years old to increase the potential pool. Since women make up approx 50% of the population, and as Pac pointed out are benefitting under the equal rights laws, the 18 year old girls should be solicited by recruiters the same way the boys are.

Good luck

 

[Fantasea]

Have not all able bodied citizens a duty to serve if called upon?

In every US conflict, women have made valuable and often valiant contributions. It has been estimated that it takes about twenty persons to support each front line trooper. Since so many of the support jobs are such that they are not gender specific, and since so many women are performing them now, why should they be excluded in the event a draft is ever necessary?

 

[shuamort]

Other ideas:
It could keep population down. Women, knowing that they will have to serve could be less likely to have offspring because of fear of draft. (On the reverse tho, women could have offspring to demonstrate hardship and not able to serve due to child).

Due to the fact that more people are openly gay, the military is losing its pool of applicants (On the reverse, allowing openly gay folk to serve in the military).

Morale would go up if you can turn a tank's barrel into a stripper pole (OK, that one's just for fun)

Women who are taken as POWs would possibly be treated more kindly. (Contingent on the region)

Equality, I know, but it does need to be pointed out that women have never demanded equality in conscription. On top of that, there is (or at least used to be) laws barring women from entering into combat. Those would need to be reversed not only for equality in serving, but because combat pay is higher as well.

 

[Contrarian]

Your point about women never protesting for the right to be drafted is very telling. Some people want equality... to a limit.

This is the shame with the gay issue. These people are forced to register etc., and all who are in the military right now are volunteers seeking to serve their country and benefit from programs like the GI Bill, but if discovered are drummed out of the military in disgrace. It is a stupid move for a personnel starved Pentagon to exclude this pool of candidates.

This is also true of the wounded and handicapped. These people can easily be used in support functions that are now being held by able bodied personnel. Very often the wounded (amputees etc) ate summarily discharged, when they could continue to serve out their enlistments reassigned to other duties.

 

[geekgrrl]

This is essentially the same question as the "women in combat zones" issue that arose recently in Congress. Some congresspersons wanted (I believe in good faith) to keep women out of harm's way by prohibiting them from occupying positions that place them near the front lines, in the areas of greatest personal risk. Even though women are not expressly assigned to combat positions, their support roles are vital to operations, argued the Pentagon, and sometimes that necessitates their presence near the firing lines.

I can see arguments for both sides. I remember being on a date in a cocktail lounge when the guy I was with got into an altercation with the bartender. I was right next to the "combat zone". They both reached across the bar and grabbed each other and I got an accidental elbow in my ribs. As I picked myself up off the floor, I realized just how very strong most men are compared to, well, me, at least, and how much more force they can exert than I can. At that point, I came to understand something. Men can do things physically that even the strongest women can only dream about. That said, bullets are the great equalizer. All the muscle in the world can be stopped dead in its tracks by a well-placed, adequate-caliber bullet (preferably hollow-point). But in combat situations, you can't always rely on bullets. Sometimes, it will have to be hand-to-hand combat in a war zone. A larger woman in excellent physical condition with martial arts training might have a chance in such a situation against an average or smaller man -- provided he is unable to restrain her. Once her limbs are restrained, it will be much harder for her to break free than it would be for a male. Most combat hand-to-hand fighting relies on upper-body strength, while women's greatest physical strength is in their legs.

So, is it fair, right, or just to send a woman into harm's way? My answer would be that each woman should decide for herself how much risk she is willing to assume. Is it fair that men are not given that same option to decide? Well, they are not the ones being asked to confront physical strength much greater than theirs. Men in combat in general have a fighting chance against their male enemies. With women, it's not a sure thing, so it's fair to give them that choice. Let those who wish sign up for front-line or even combat duty if they think they're up to the task. Then the Pentagon and the chain of command can feel free, with no moral misgivings, to assign these women to duty in combat zones. The Pentagon could even take this a step further and ask women to assess the degree of risk they are willing to assume in combat areas on a scale of, say, 1 to 10 or 1 to 100, and assign women accordingly.

That way, no one can say that women are not being give equal opportunity to serve, and it should also be understood that women who recognize their physical inadequacy to confront enemy male combatants are being realistic, not cowardly, and their male colleagues should respect them no less for making the contributions they are able to make. The military, after all, is about physical strength, and that women want to be there at all demonstrates their desire to contribute as equally *as they are able* to the defense of their country.

 

[Fantasea]

The military, after all, is about physical strength, and that women want to be there at all demonstrates their desire to contribute as equally *as they are able* to the defense of their country.

From an earlier post:

"Have not all able bodied citizens a duty to serve if called upon?

In every US conflict, women have made valuable and often valiant contributions. It has been estimated that it takes about twenty persons to support each front line trooper. Since so many of the support jobs are such that they are not gender specific, and since so many women are performing them now, why should they be excluded in the event a draft is ever necessary?"

Every person who enters the armed forces is subjected to a battery of physical and psychological tests to determine the most appropriate assignment for that person. While there are military specialties for which women are not as well qualified as men, there are numerous specialties in which women are far better qualified than men.

What's wrong with assigning personnel according to their abilities? Is this not done in all walks of civilian life? In many police departments, civilians are hired to perform clerical and other 'inside' tasks in order to free up trained officers for street duty.

There have been about 35 female KIA in Iraq. Attacks on supply caravans accounted for some and indiscriminate shootings and bombings accounted for the rest. For them, in the randomness of war and terrorist activities, gender played no part. Had they been men, the result would have been the same.

Do women wish to serve in the armed forces? Since they are all volunteers, the answer is obvious. Do they perform a valuable service? To the extent that they are assigned duties consistent with their abilities, they perform outstanding service.

Should women be subject to the draft, if there ever is one, why not?

 

[topgun146]

Scotty, if the debaters arguing the other side are going to have a chance to rebuttle your statements, then have some people state the equality reason, and after that let the rest fend off the attacks. Most likely, from the other side you will hear many points such as:
- Women are not as suited to serve in the military as men are.
- Women are often needed domestically in wartime
- The draft is evil(yes, this is off topic but I almost gaurantee it will be mentioned)
- Women cannot serve as well(false, but they will make this point somehow)

all you can do is think it through clearly, and if possible, use their own statements against them.

Now that I think of it, your debate is probably over by now considering I just got done with school today...but oh well.

 

[Berg123321]

First, I would steer away from the "women WANT to be equal" line. You're setting yourself up to be labeled a chauvinist.

That being said, you could argue the point that women have a much larger role in the combat zones than when the selective service was enacted, therefore increasing the need for women to be available to the draft.

Also, you could spin the "guys are being discriminated against" argument to women are being denied the opportunity.

 

[Hoot]

You'll think I'm crazy, but one main reason I've read for keeping women out of combat roles is because of their killer instinct.

In the animal kingdom, females are usually the most ferocious, particularly when defending their young.

I'm not saying I buy this theory, so please don't go off on me, but women...supposedly get the "blood lust." Call it a maternal instinct, deep rooted in their psyches, or whatever, but the female is usually the more vicious killer.

The military wants soldiers that obey orders, not a soldier who may...in the heat of battle...start seeing "red."

Remember...this is not my opinion...just something I read in a publication like 'Psychology Today,' so take it for what it's worth.

 

[topgun146]

You'll think I'm crazy, but one main reason I've read for keeping women out of combat roles is because of their killer instinct.

In the animal kingdom, females are usually the most ferocious, particularly when defending their young.

I'm not saying I buy this theory, so please don't go off on me, but women...supposedly get the "blood lust." Call it a maternal instinct, deep rooted in their psyches, or whatever, but the female is usually the more vicious killer.

The military wants soldiers that obey orders, not a soldier who may...in the heat of battle...start seeing "red."

Remember...this is not my opinion...just something I read in a publication like 'Psychology Today,' so take it for what it's worth.

Women do not have so much a "killer instinct". People act based on rationality, habit, and emotions. Habit comes through training. This does not vrfy much by gender. Rationality seems to be more of a factor in men, whereas emoption strongly governs the actions of women. Therefore, women are not so bloodthirsty as they are unpredictable because all people have different emotions. So in the heat of battle, some women may cower down and thus do nothing(except eventually get killed), and some may act on rage and excitement and act in irrational and dangerous ways, again getting themselves killed. So this killer instinct you talk about is simply governing by emotions. And another note, with your references to the animal kingdom, animals act on instinct which is derived of habit and genetics, therefore the same principles cannot be transferred to human phsychology.

 

[Fantasea]

According to Wikipedia, Israel, arugably having the longest continuous combat experience with women in its armed forces, the IDF, sees it this way:

Women in the IDF​

Israel is the only country which currently has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious reasons.

Following their active service, women, like men, are in theory required to serve up to one month annually in reserve duty. However, in practice only some women in combat roles get called for active reserve duty, and only for a few years following their active service, with many exit points (e.g., pregnancy).

Women were historically barred from battle in the IDF, serving in a variety of technical and administrative support roles, except during the 1948 war of independence, when manpower shortages saw many of them taking active part in battles on the ground. But after a landmark 1994 High Court appeal by Alice Miller, a Jewish immigrant from South Africa, the Air Force was instructed to open its pilots course to women (several served as transport pilots during the war of independence in 1948 and "Operation Kadesh" in 1956, but the Air force later closed its ranks to women fliers). Miller failed the entrance exams, but since her initiative, many additional combat roles were opened. As of 2005, Women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women.

As of 2002, 33% of lower rank Officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, but only 3% of the most senior ranks.

450 Women currently serve in combat units of Israel's security forces, primarily in the Border Police. The first female fighter pilot successfully received her wings in 2001. In a controversial move, the IDF abolished its "Womens Corps" command in 2004, with a view that it has become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soliders with no special status. However, after pressures from Feminist lobbies, The Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "advisor for Women's affairs".

 

[Hoot]

And another note, with your references to the animal kingdom, animals act on instinct which is derived of habit and genetics, therefore the same principles cannot be transferred to human phsychology.

It was just something I read somewhere....but I'm not sure your above statement is an absolute truth.

When facing death, I think it's likely that our own "animal instincts" could come to the forefront. The human race is not too far removed from animal instincts. Animals may act on habit and genetics, but also on learned behavior...much like us.

I think you give too high of a status to humans and too low a status to animals?

 

[Fantasea]

I think you give too high of a status to humans and too low a status to animals?

One tends to judge others by standards of one's self.

 

[Hoot]

One tends to judge others by standards of one's self.

You can judge a society, or an individual, by how well they treat their animals.

 

[Fantasea]

You can judge a society, or an individual, by how well they treat their animals.

Perhaps the Pro-Life folks should hook up with the P E T A crowd and have unborn children re-classified as animals. Then Roe v Wade would be rendered moot.

 

[Hoot]

Perhaps the Pro-Life folks should hook up with the P E T A crowd and have unborn children re-classified as animals. Then Roe v Wade would be rendered moot.

I think they'd have to leave their furs at home before Peta would allow them to join?

 

[Fantasea]

I think they'd have to leave their furs at home before Peta would allow them to join?

That would be a small sacrifice to save a million and a half infants each year.

 

[rudy0908]

I have been thinking about this question a bit lately, and came to the following conclusions.

Women have, in the last hundred years, gained many rights so that they are (or nearly are) equal to men in most regards of society. Men must sign up to potentially defend their rights, so women should too. However, I don't think they should be sent to front-line combat areas unless they volunteer to. So they could be drafted, but used for support lines and other behind-the-lines but vital operations. On the one hand, I think that equality also brings responsibility, but I would feel horrible sending a bunch of women to the frontlines against their wishes. Please forgive me if I come off as chauvinsitic, because I'm really not.