• 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!

Should Women have to sign up for Selective Services.

Should women sign up


  • Total voters
    77
Actually believing in gender roles leaves people happier and more fulfilled. As we have attempted to deny their natural existence, however, women have become less happy. It seems that it is the belief that we can use ideology to override biology that is actually actively detrimental to society and the women in it.
I don't believe in gender roles.

I DO believe that a woman/man can decide her/his personal role choice - if that choice fits into a traditional gender role.../shrug
 
I don't believe in gender roles.

I DO believe that a woman/man can decide her/his personal role choice - if that choice fits into a traditional gender role.../shrug

That's nice. Myself, I like to believe that my income is higher than it is, and that I'm taller as well. Sadly, reality doesn't always conform to what we proudly declare that we believe, and a million plus years of evolutionary pressure bow down poorly to pontification.
 
Soldiering is no longer simply putting a gun in someone's hands and throwing them at the enemy army. It's a complex, technical job. There is no space for untrained draftees and no need to swell the military like that. We have, as a nation, made the draft obsolete. So long as we have a standing military on anywhere near the scale we do now, the draft is useless and needless.

But it ought to be equal. There's no reason to take the position that women are unfit to serve. But there's also no need to make anyone serve who doesn't want to.
 
I don't believe in gender roles.

I DO believe that a woman/man can decide her/his personal role choice - if that choice fits into a traditional gender role.../shrug

I wonder where people are getting the idea that gender roles are always bad? Where did that idea come from exactly? I know feminism played a part, but it seems hard to believe they are the only ones behind this train of thought.
 
I'm down with that idea, Every fetus in the USA should do its duty.

Every sperm! Every American sperm is sacred, and needs to do it's duty.
 
I wonder where people are getting the idea that gender roles are always bad? Where did that idea come from exactly? I know feminism played a part, but it seems hard to believe they are the only ones behind this train of thought.

The question is, who applies the roles? If a woman feels aggressive and combative and physically able to pass the test, do you feel able to tell her she shouldn't be in the mix? Should a woman who can send you away to the parking lot with a broken nose be told she's unfit for a combat role?
 
Actually believing in gender roles leaves people happier and more fulfilled. As we have attempted to deny their natural existence, however, women have become less happy. It seems that it is the belief that we can use ideology to override biology that is actually actively detrimental to society and the women in it.

Do you have any evidence of that? I would love to see a study or report that supports that conclusion. If I do see it, then I'll consider your position.

Until then, what this sounds like is "Black people ENJOY being enslaved -- it is their natural condition, and they are happier for it!"
 
Do you have any evidence of that? I would love to see a study or report that supports that conclusion. If I do see it, then I'll consider your position.

:shrug: simply because it happened to be on the top of my head: The bad news is that gentlemanly behavior makes people happy.

Also because it hit all the morning talk shows and stuck in my brain housing group: Relationships with egalitarian gender roles are tied to lower marital and sexual satisfaction for women[/url].

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women...For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction....






If you would like me to go out, find, and then reference a bazillion articles confirming that we are indeed mammals, and like almost all of them, but definitely including our closest cousins, we evolved gender role differentiation to better divide labor towards relative strengths, that is possible as well. I admit, however, that I continue to be flummoxed by the political side of the aisle that most ardently insists we teach evolution in all our schools being the same one that denies so vigorously its' bequeathment. Men and women are both made wondrously and wondrously different. That's not controlling for all individuals - you have outliers everywhere. But just as you can say "males are bigger than females", recognizing that there are some small men and some large women, but that the two bell curves have significantly different apexes, you can say that gender roles work better for more people for more life satisfaction because it more neatly fits with how we are made. As an example, women's brains respond differently to the sound of a baby crying, Oxytocin, the "cuddle horomone", is released during breastfeeding, enabling intense bonding between mother and baby that isn't replicated for the gender who can't excrete milk. Women are also better at multitasking, while men are generally better at focusing on one task. Etc. etc. etc.




The counter is usually to declare some kind of denunciation of the absolute application of the principle, but that is a strawman against an argument that isn't being advanced. We are talking about broad application for the general mean of humankind.

Since we abandoned those, however, women have become less happy, flipping an advantage in wellbeing over men in the 1970s to a disadvantage today.

Oh. Except for conservative women.
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything wrong with having a traditional gender role. Children are born as blank slates and giving them something to base their forming identity on is no bad thing. Where it turns bad is when people take those traditional gender roles and start saying you can't be any other way or you'll be ostracized as an outcast or weirdo. This is hurtful to many people who don't fit into those traditional gender roles. On the opposite side of things, the equally poor overreaction to people trying to force others into stereotypes through shaming is that some people will say ALL gender roles are bad and no one should be telling anyone how to act. Well, if no one is telling anyone how to act, how are they going to know what to do with themselves? Telling a little girl that little girls usually like dresses and dolls isn't wrong. Maybe she'll pick up some dolls and find herself having a grand time. Or maybe she won't have a grand time and she'll instead gravitate more to being a tom boy than a debutante. I think the little girl should have the option to explore that side of things without anyone shaming her for it. Both extremes can cause harm in the long run. As with all things, moderation is usually the best course.
 
:shrug: simply because it happened to be on the top of my head: The bad news is that gentlemanly behavior makes people happy.

Also because it hit all the morning talk shows and stuck in my brain housing group: Relationships with egalitarian gender roles are tied to lower marital and sexual satisfaction for women[/url].

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women...For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction....






If you would like me to go out, find, and then reference a bazillion articles confirming that we are indeed mammals, and like almost all of them, but definitely including our closest cousins, we evolved gender role differentiation to better divide labor towards relative strengths, that is possible as well. I admit, however, that I continue to be flummoxed by the political side of the aisle that most ardently insists we teach evolution in all our schools being the same one that denies so vigorously its' bequeathment. Men and women are both made wondrously and wondrously different. That's not controlling for all individuals - you have outliers everywhere. But just as you can say "males are bigger than females", recognizing that there are some small men and some large women, but that the two bell curves have significantly different apexes, you can say that gender roles work better for more people for more life satisfaction because it more neatly fits with how we are made. As an example, women's brains respond differently to the sound of a baby crying, Oxytocin, the "cuddle horomone", is released during breastfeeding, enabling intense bonding between mother and baby that isn't replicated for the gender who can't excrete milk. Women are also better at multitasking, while men are generally better at focusing on one task. Etc. etc. etc.




The counter is usually to declare some kind of denunciation of the absolute application of the principle, but that is a strawman against an argument that isn't being advanced. We are talking about broad application for the general mean of humankind.

Since we abandoned those, however, women have become less happy, flipping an advantage in wellbeing over men in the 1970s to a disadvantage today.

Oh. Except for conservative women.

I'm not above admitting I'm wrong when there's evidence that contradicts my position.

You've given me a lot to read through and think about -- thanks for this.

I will indeed keep my promise and reconsider where I stand, as this is some fascinating stuff -- though to be honest, your argument about evolution is probably what's given me the most pause.

It does appear true to me that sexual dimorphism would indeed create two divergent tracks of complementary strengths and weaknesses for each sex in a species.

Fascinating.
 
:shrug: simply because it happened to be on the top of my head: The bad news is that gentlemanly behavior makes people happy.

Also because it hit all the morning talk shows and stuck in my brain housing group: Relationships with egalitarian gender roles are tied to lower marital and sexual satisfaction for women[/url].

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women...For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction....






If you would like me to go out, find, and then reference a bazillion articles confirming that we are indeed mammals, and like almost all of them, but definitely including our closest cousins, we evolved gender role differentiation to better divide labor towards relative strengths, that is possible as well. I admit, however, that I continue to be flummoxed by the political side of the aisle that most ardently insists we teach evolution in all our schools being the same one that denies so vigorously its' bequeathment. Men and women are both made wondrously and wondrously different. That's not controlling for all individuals - you have outliers everywhere. But just as you can say "males are bigger than females", recognizing that there are some small men and some large women, but that the two bell curves have significantly different apexes, you can say that gender roles work better for more people for more life satisfaction because it more neatly fits with how we are made. As an example, women's brains respond differently to the sound of a baby crying, Oxytocin, the "cuddle horomone", is released during breastfeeding, enabling intense bonding between mother and baby that isn't replicated for the gender who can't excrete milk. Women are also better at multitasking, while men are generally better at focusing on one task. Etc. etc. etc.




The counter is usually to declare some kind of denunciation of the absolute application of the principle, but that is a strawman against an argument that isn't being advanced. We are talking about broad application for the general mean of humankind.

Since we abandoned those, however, women have become less happy, flipping an advantage in wellbeing over men in the 1970s to a disadvantage today.

Oh. Except for conservative women.



I'm not above admitting I'm wrong when there's evidence that contradicts my position.

You've given me a lot to read through and think about -- thanks for this.

I will indeed keep my promise and reconsider where I stand, as this is some fascinating stuff -- though to be honest, your argument about evolution is probably what's given me the most pause.

It does appear true to me that sexual dimorphism would indeed create two divergent tracks of complementary strengths and weaknesses for each sex in a species.

Fascinating.
 
Women should not have to sign up for anything more or less then men are supposed to sign up for.
 
With more and more push to for women to do combat roles in the military should women have to sign up for selective services. For those that don't know Selective Services what male Americans have to sign up for when they turn 18 so they can be drafted if a draft is ever called up again. If you fail to sign up you can face jail time, be fined, and is denied aid for college.

Of course. Why would we fail to utilize an enormous pool of human capital in a war time severe enough to necessitate a draft?
 
I'm not above admitting I'm wrong when there's evidence that contradicts my position.

You've given me a lot to read through and think about -- thanks for this.

I will indeed keep my promise and reconsider where I stand, as this is some fascinating stuff -- though to be honest, your argument about evolution is probably what's given me the most pause.

It does appear true to me that sexual dimorphism would indeed create two divergent tracks of complementary strengths and weaknesses for each sex in a species.

Fascinating.

Bingo. That doesn't mean that law should force any individual into roles that they particularly feel unsuited for, but it does mean that we should take pause before we try to convince young women that they must try to reject who they feel they are if they are to be "successful", or "liberated", or whatever.

We also need to stop telling men that acting like children is acceptable, but that's a whole-nother-ball-o-wax :)
 
Bingo. That doesn't mean that law should force any individual into roles that they particularly feel unsuited for, but it does mean that we should take pause before we try to convince young women that they must try to reject who they feel they are if they are to be "successful", or "liberated", or whatever.

We also need to stop telling men that acting like children is acceptable, but that's a whole-nother-ball-o-wax :)

I've been struggling to think what you might be referring to. I certainly don't support treating adults like children, but how is it that we do so in your mind?
 
I've been struggling to think what you might be referring to. I certainly don't support treating adults like children, but how is it that we do so in your mind?

No idea if this is common in scotland like it is in the US, but here we have made common a kind of extended adolescence for men.
 
If they are the man in their relationship I say yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom