• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Bill Requires Women to Sign Up For Draft

RabidAlpaca said:
Are you trying to say that young women oppose gender equality?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have daughters, and a wife. None want to be treated like a man. Be careful lumping any group of people into a neat little box because of the actions of a few loud mouth, fringe fanatics. Should the Army be open to women? Sure, IF THEY WANT IT. Should every women be drafted? Nope.
 
The idea that women should be excluded from military service is archaic.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yeah, they're much different then men. Who are thrilled with the draft. (sarcasm off) I'm sure most men are all for the draft nowadays. I know back in my days we were all thrilled. When I got my notice and was drafted it was the happiest day of my life. :roll:

I couldn't wait to show off how 'responsible' I was.

But anyway it's a moot point and I have no idea what is going through these 2 Reps. mind. The days of huge Armies are over. No need for a male, or female draft.
Click to expand...

When I talked about perks and responsibilities were you under the impression that I was describing the draft as a perk?
 
Henrin said:
Which is why equality is just a slogan. It still comes down to what people want and what people don't. Women might say they want equality, but that doesn't mean they actually want to be treated equally. There is a difference between a slogan and someones real opinion when faced with reality. I'm not saying that is a bad thing now since men do it too, but just that there is a difference between the two things and you can't just run on the principle alone without pissing people off.
Click to expand...

You have to look at the overall situation rather than just 1 particular issue. There are privileges and benefits that come with being female. They just didn't balance out with the drawbacks in the past. Things are better now, if not absolutely equal in every way. I never have to clean the bathroom at home, and I greatly appreciate this, so much so that I will happily take responsibility for the trash, and even help out with the dishes here and there. It's not really fair to point to the trash situation and claim inequality, no more than it is to point at the bathroom cleaning responsibilities. One must consider the over all give and take, and accept that the micromanaging required for absolute total equality would overshadow the initial issue.
 
Crovax said:
Which is the problem, women want all the perks and none of the responsibility
Click to expand...

Really?


Thank goodness you know exactly what women want. Maybe my husband needs to sign up here so he can be as enlightened as some of you. :roll:


For the record, I would sign up for selective service and I do take out the trash when needed.
 
Crovax said:
When I talked about perks and responsibilities were you under the impression that I was describing the draft as a perk?
Click to expand...

No, you threw out a general statement that all women want 'perks' without the responsibility. I thought you meant the perks of living in the US, the perks of equal rights, etc. Doesn't change my answer though. You also seem to be generalizing.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
No, you threw out a general statement that all women want 'perks' without the responsibility. I thought you meant the perks of living in the US, the perks of equal rights, etc. Doesn't change my answer though. You also seem to be generalizing.
Click to expand...

No I just said women not all women, it should have gone without saying that I didn't mean every single women ever.
 
CMPancake said:
Men and women do have differences, yes. Still doesn't change the fact that one sex should be required to sign up for the draft and another should not.
Click to expand...
Except that women are different fromt men, and shouldn't be in combat.

Yeah, how dare we hold women to the same standard as men! Rabble rabble rabble.
Click to expand...
Wait, are they different or not? Sounds like you are claiming they are the same.

On the contrary, women should be able to opt for a combat role.
Click to expand...
And no good reason given for that.

Not by any means, however a good military should have as many infantry troops they can afford. But not everyone can be a POG.
Click to expand...
We have not a good military, we have a great military, with no women in combat roles. Enough said.

Aside from the fact that if a woman can pass all the requirements needed for those combat roles, they should be able to perform that role?
Click to expand...
And let our sub human enemies get their hands on them when they are taken prisoner? Aside from the fact that it is just not worth picking out the few that can pass.
 
Anthony60 said:
Except that women are different fromt men, and shouldn't be in combat.

Wait, are they different or not? Sounds like you are claiming they are the same.


And no good reason given for that.


We have not a good military, we have a great military, with no women in combat roles. Enough said.

And let our sub human enemies get their hands on them when they are taken prisoner? Aside from the fact that it is just not worth picking out the few that can pass.
Click to expand...

There is a actually sound reasons shown by military studies to not allow women in combat roles. Besides equality those that support women in combat roles really have nothing to support their case.
 
Henrin said:
There is a actually sound reasons shown by military studies to not allow women in combat roles. Besides equality those that support women in combat roles really have nothing to support their case.
Click to expand...

True, we didn't even get into the sexual aspect. Things that happen between men, women, relationships... involvement of more than two people, love triangles. etc... All that needs to be kept far away from a combat unit.
 
Anthony60 said:
True, we didn't even get into the sexual aspect. Things that happen between men, women, relationships... involvement of more than two people, love triangles. etc... All that needs to be kept far away from a combat unit.
Click to expand...

It's not even needed since they have been shown to be a net negative for the unit in other ways. It makes no sense to ignore hard data that shows that mixed units are the worst units just because people want equality. The entire purpose of this should be to put out the best, not to lower the standards because things aren't fair.
 
Anthony60 said:
Except that women are different fromt men, and shouldn't be in combat.
Click to expand...
4

Yes, we can agree men and women have inherent differences. However we can also agree that some men can be in combat, and some men cannot. It'd be safe to say some women can handle combat, and some women that cannot. Why can't the women that can do combat jobs not qualify for them?

Anthony60 said:
Wait, are they different or not? Sounds like you are claiming they are the same.
Click to expand...

I'm claiming to hold women in the same standard as men. If men are required to enlist into drafting, then women should do the same.

Anthony60 said:
And no good reason given for that.
Click to expand...

So lets say a woman scores rivaling her peers in the Army Rangers, and can mentally handle the stress that Rangers go through in combat jobs. Why should we put someone with a lower PT score into the rangers over someone more qualified because he has a set of testies?


Anthony60 said:
We have not a good military, we have a great military, with no women in combat roles. Enough said.
Click to expand...

The military could be better if we open up the jobs to women who can handle the requirements needed to enlist in combat jobs.

Anthony60 said:
And let our sub human enemies get their hands on them when they are taken prisoner?
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but it isn't like ISIS or the Taliban treat the men in the US Army any better. Every soldier from the Military Intelligence guys to the riflemen all run the risk of being treated poorly by the enemy. Your position seems to be more condescending than caring.

Anthony60 said:
Aside from the fact that it is just not worth picking out the few that can pass.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case we can just cut off combat jobs from other demographics if those demographics begin to do poorly in combat jobs?
 
CMPancake said:
Yes, we can agree men and women have inherent differences. However we can also agree that some men can be in combat, and some men cannot. It'd be safe to say some women can handle combat, and some women that cannot. Why can't the women that can do combat jobs not qualify for them?
Click to expand...

How many do you think will fail v. how many will pass? If I have ten women, on average how many will pass?


So lets say a woman scores rivaling her peers in the Army Rangers, and can mentally handle the stress that Rangers go through in combat jobs. Why should we put someone with a lower PT score into the rangers over someone more qualified because he has a set of testies?
Click to expand...

Hasn't happened yet. The two that so called passed were given special treatment and didn't even really pass.


The military could be better if we open up the jobs to women who can handle the requirements needed to enlist in combat jobs.
Click to expand...

The data doesn't support your argument, sorry.
 
Last edited:
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The days of huge Armies on the battlefield is long over. so the draft is long over too. I hear what you're saying, but I think this is just going to be looked at as another slap at women by the GOP. This will not be looked at as 'equal rights' because 80% of draft age women would be against a draft(I'm just guessing at that number). For the 'equal rights' argument to work that demographic would have to be behind the 'right'. I doubt many women will be for drafting women.

Hell I'll bet a majority of men are against it.
Click to expand...
Let's pretend that this subject comes up during a debate. How is someone supposed to articulate all of the reasons why women should not be drafted into the military without coming across as someone who believes that women are not fit for the task? How's THAT going to play with women?

As a campaign issue, this could be a real headache.
 
Helix said:
I'm glad that the house is using its time wisely. This is a very pressing issue which desperately needs to be addressed.

Welp, back to repealing the ACA for the 457th time.
Click to expand...

Better than passing more laws to give themselves more power. If all they ever did was rename post offices, I would be happy.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
If you are correct then I highly doubt the draft, including drafting women is the way to get right people to operate, maintain and repair advanced equipment.

Up the money, make the pot sweeter. Things like that will have a much better chance of getting qualified people needed to operate this advanced equipment. Not dragging millions of people who don't want to be there into the military.
Click to expand...
A draft has an extremely high chance of getting qualified people, kind of the whole purpose, lol.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Let's pretend that this subject comes up during a debate. How is someone supposed to articulate all of the reasons why women should not be drafted into the military without coming across as someone who believes that women are not fit for the task? How's THAT going to play with women?

As a campaign issue, this could be a real headache.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the other thing about this whole business is it's a moot point. There's never going to be a draft again, so why even bother with this business of making women sign up? Again, I don't understand the thinking of these 2 reps. Them doing this has no upside for them.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
How many do you think will fail v. how many will pass? If I have ten women on average how many will pass?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know exactly. I'd imagine that since less women on average are incapable of meeting PT standards for combat roles the number of women passing through job training for infantry roles would be lower than men.

Henrin said:
Hasn't happened yet. The two that so called passed were given special treatment and didn't even really pass.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the two Army Rangers, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver? If so, that isn't simply the case. Those two Rangers earned the patch the same way as the rest of the Rangers.

Henrin said:
The data doesn't support your argument, sorry.
Click to expand...

Seeing your tendency to misinterpret data, don't blame me for taking your claims with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
CMPancake said:
I wouldn't know exactly. I'd imagine that since less women on average are incapable of meeting PT standards for combat roles the number of women passing through job training for infantry roles would be lower than men.
Click to expand...

Then your input is not useful. It's mostly a waste of time to even have women try out since the amount that pass is pretty small.

Are you talking about the two Army Rangers, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver? If so, that isn't simply the case. Those two Rangers earned the patch the same way as the rest of the Rangers.
Click to expand...

Nope, plenty of accounts from people that were there said they were given more time to get ready and had more attempts to pass. In the end, they still didn't pass, sorry

Seeing your tendency to misinterpret data, don't blame me for taking your claims with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

It was the research on mixed units right before Obama took action on the issue. It made very clear that mixed units were at the bottom of the pack. Obama effectively ignored the data for his own political goals.
 
Last edited:
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Again, why draft millions to try to get thousands of 'qualified' people for the hi-tech jobs? Seems very wasteful. Just up the pay, sweeten the pot, and more qualified people with join up.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is talking about drafting millions of people to get thousands of qualified people.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The days of huge Armies on the battlefield is long over. so the draft is long over too. I hear what you're saying, but I think this is just going to be looked at as another slap at women by the GOP. This will not be looked at as 'equal rights' because 80% of draft age women would be against a draft(I'm just guessing at that number). For the 'equal rights' argument to work that demographic would have to be behind the 'right'. I doubt many women will be for drafting women.

Hell I'll bet a majority of men are against it.
Click to expand...

There is still a role for huge armies on the battlefield. That is saturation of huge areas with soldiers, and cannon fodder.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I agree. But the other thing about this whole business is it's a moot point. There's never going to be a draft again, so why even bother with this business of making women sign up? Again, I don't understand the thinking of these 2 reps. Them doing this has no upside for them.
Click to expand...
I don't think there will be a draft again, either, but as long as registration is mandatory for men people will question why it isn't for women. Bills that have no real world impact but generate headlines and stir debate always seem to pop up around election time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom