• 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
AlbqOwl said:
I checked no, because I believe both men and women should volunteer for the armed services and there should be no conscription for either. And whether it is the fire department or police department or any branch of the military or anything else, I am 100% opposed to lower any useful educational/mental or physical standards for anything so that anybody, including women, can qualify.

Women have always had a critical role to play in society at all levels, including the military. And that will almost certainly continue. But it is a rare woman who will have the same strength as a physically fit guy of even the same height and weight; and will have much less so with a physically fit guy who is bigger and heavier, and that will often mean that women are less well suited for certain kinds of duty than the guys are. This is true even though women can do remarkable things when they have to. They always have.

We have a stronger, gentler, more cohesive, and more productive society when women are allowed to be women and men are allowed to be men without a whole lot of political correctness crap muddying the waters.
Click to expand...
Is there any situation in which you would support a draft?

I'm actually curious here, let me hasten to add.
 
The Mark said:
Is there any situation in which you would support a draft?

I'm actually curious here, let me hasten to add.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I can't think of any scenario in which I would see it necessary. I would like to think that a free people would rally to defend their freedom if they were called on to do so by leaders they respected and trusted.

I am so opposed to fighting wars for purposes of containment or deterrence or for any reason other than what is necessary in our nation's explicit interest. And if we go to war, I want us to go with overwhelming force to obliterate the enemy and bring him to unconditional surrender. No pulling punches. No stopping before we have unconditional surrender. And then as we did in Germany and Japan, we can oversee their rebuilding under our terms, not theirs. I see no other justification for putting our people in harm's way. And even then it should be voluntary.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't know. I can't think of any scenario in which I would see it necessary. I would like to think that a free people would rally to defend their freedom if they were called on to do so by leaders they respected and trusted.

I am so opposed to fighting wars for purposes of containment or deterrence or for any reason other than what is necessary in our nation's explicit interest. And if we go to war, I want us to go with overwhelming force to obliterate the enemy and bring him to unconditional surrender. No pulling punches. No stopping before we have unconditional surrender. And then as we did in Germany and Japan, we can oversee their rebuilding under our terms, not theirs. I see no other justification for putting our people in harm's way. And even then it should be voluntary.
Click to expand...

The only scenario I could think of wherein a draft would be reasonable: Very powerful attack on the US imminent or already underway, AND for some reason populous no longer cares enough to volunteer to defend the US.
 
The Mark said:
The only scenario I could think of wherein a draft would be reasonable: Very powerful attack on the US imminent or already underway, AND for some reason populous no longer cares enough to volunteer to defend the US.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it, if nobody cares enough to defend us, the draft won't make any difference.
 
If and when anyone is "called up," then all women of age should register. Since we currently have an all enlisted force, it seems unnecessary for either gender to register.
 
The Mark said:
The only scenario I could think of wherein a draft would be reasonable: Very powerful attack on the US imminent or already underway, AND for some reason populous no longer cares enough to volunteer to defend the US.
Click to expand...

The draft was to assure that a random selection of young men went to fight instead of what we have otherwise which is a force made up mainly of low and low middle incomers wherein the wealthy and uppermiddlers and their families get away unscathed by the politics they are increasingly profiting from, including our wars and police actions.
 
cpgrad08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If women's advocacy groups demand equality, then they should include registration on their list of demands.
 
Summerwind said:
If and when anyone is "called up," then all women of age should register. Since we currently have an all enlisted force, it seems unnecessary for either gender to register.
Click to expand...


That pretty much covers it. If we have it, it should apply regardless of gender; but there seems to be no reason to have it.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There are things that were true about men and women, and how they differ, back in the nineteenth century, or any time before, that remain equally true today, in the twenty-first century, and which will remain true for as long as Mankind exists. I find your remarks about “…try[ing] to turn the clock back to the 19th century” and “Victorian terms about men and women's roles” to be meaningless and absurd.
Click to expand...

I am not denying the host of physical and social differences between men and women.

I am specifically taking issue with the outdated idea that women can't fight, or that they make incapable soldiers. This has been proven wrong by history, time and time again. If you have any evidence to support your claim, let's hear it.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I am not denying the host of physical and social differences between men and women.

I am specifically taking issue with the outdated idea that women can't fight, or that they make incapable soldiers. This has been proven wrong by history, time and time again. If you have any evidence to support your claim, let's hear it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they can't fight.

It's not their place to go to war. It's our duty as men, to protect women, and not to put them in harm's way. This has always been true, and it will always be true. A society that is willing to use women and children as cannon fodder is a society that deserves to be wiped out.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm not saying they can't fight.

It's not their place to go to war. It's our duty as men, to protect women, and not to put them in harm's way. This has always been true, and it will always be true. A society that is willing to use women and children as cannon fodder is a society that deserves to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

so those militia people that were putting women on the front line to "defend" Bundy's right to land should be wiped out?

But back on topic - why are our young women more valuable than our young men? Neither should be placed on the front lines except when absolutely necessary to defend our country; they should be used wisely; and both genders should be required to defend us if needed.
 
paddymcdougall said:
so those militia people that were putting women on the front line to "defend" Bundy's right to land should be wiped out?

But back on topic - why are our young women more valuable than our young men? Neither should be placed on the front lines except when absolutely necessary to defend our country; they should be used wisely; and both genders should be required to defend us if needed.
Click to expand...

Because young women are the source of the next generation of young persons.

I'm not saying this is even a reason not to place them in combat, only that it is what makes them more valuable, in terms of species survival.
 
The Mark said:
Because young women are the source of the next generation of young persons.

I'm not saying this is even a reason not to place them in combat, only that it is what makes them more valuable, in terms of species survival.
Click to expand...

You do realize we need both men and women to make babies right?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm not saying they can't fight.

It's not their place to go to war. It's our duty as men, to protect women, and not to put them in harm's way. This has always been true, and it will always be true. A society that is willing to use women and children as cannon fodder is a society that deserves to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

I'm just struggling to see how you don't realise your opinion is sexist. Believing that women are weak creatures that need protecting is not chivalrous, it is actively detrimental to their place in society, as it paints them as less-capable and less-independent.

Anyway, who was talking about cannon fodder? I'm not saying throw them out there to get shot at -- I'm not saying that about anyone. But we should (and thankfully are) absolutely training them to be capable soldiers that can fight our wars. Where is your opposition to that?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I'm just struggling to see how you don't realise your opinion is sexist. Believing that women are weak creatures that need protecting is not chivalrous, it is actively detrimental to their place in society, as it paints them as less-capable and less-independent.

Anyway, who was talking about cannon fodder? I'm not saying throw them out there to get shot at -- I'm not saying that about anyone. But we should (and thankfully are) absolutely training them to be capable soldiers that can fight our wars. Where is your opposition to that?
Click to expand...

I did not say that women are weak, less-capable, nor less-independent.

But it is the duty of men to protect women and children, and to keep them out of harms way. Any “man” who would willingly go along with the use of women or children as cannon fodder is no man at all; and any society that would go along with this does not deserve to prevail in any conflict in which they have resorted to such degradation.

Call me a “sexist”, if you must, but it changes nothing. “Sexism” is not always wrong.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I did not say that women are weak, less-capable, nor less-independent. But it is the duty of men to protect women and children, and to keep them out of harms way. Any “man” who would willingly go along with the use of women or children as cannon fodder is no man at all; and any society that would go along with this does not deserve to prevail in any conflict in which they have resorted to such degradation. Call me a “sexist”, if you must, but it changes nothing. “Sexism” is not always wrong.
Click to expand...
While I see it as equal duty of men and women to protect the children and keep them out of harm's way, I don't think your views are sexist at all. You take the reasonable view that God (or nature if you don't believe in God) created/evolved men and women as physically different creatures with mostly different instincts and impulses.

While there are always exceptions, we women are usually smaller and not as physically strong as the guys, while we have our own strengths. In their natural states, men and women are generally wired different and will more often than not see different things as important and have different inate abilities. That is why children so greatly benefit from having a loving mom and dad in the home--different role models that form a kind of complete dynamics that help the child, of whatever gender or sexual orientation, to develop his/her full potential including ability to form healthy relationships.

We should celebrate that we are created male and female. It goes against nature to artificially force a sameness into gender as if there are no differences.

And it is hypocritical to demand preferential treatment or special consideration for women because they are women while at the same time demanding they be treated as equals with men in all things. :)
 
The Mark said:
Because young women are the source of the next generation of young persons.

I'm not saying this is even a reason not to place them in combat, only that it is what makes them more valuable, in terms of species survival.
Click to expand...

so are young men. Unless you're planning on baby farms with artificial insemination.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I did not say that women are weak, less-capable, nor less-independent.

But it is the duty of men to protect women and children, and to keep them out of harms way.
Click to expand...

Why is it "men's duty" to "protect women and children"

Isn't it the duty of ALL adults to protect children? And certainly, as a wife, I need to keep my husband out of harm's way, just as he should be looking out for me.

Sexism is the only answer to your statement.
 
Yes. If we are going to be entirely equal, then everyone should have to sign up for selective service. And why not? We accept women in combat roles and practically every aspect of the military.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I did not say that women are weak, less-capable, nor less-independent.

But it is the duty of men to protect women and children, and to keep them out of harms way. Any “man” who would willingly go along with the use of women or children as cannon fodder is no man at all; and any society that would go along with this does not deserve to prevail in any conflict in which they have resorted to such degradation.

Call me a “sexist”, if you must, but it changes nothing. “Sexism” is not always wrong.
Click to expand...

You actively ignored my question. I am not saying that we ought to use them as cannon fodder. I am saying we should train them to be competent soldiers, just as we do men.

So, I'll ask again (I'll even bold it!), What is your opposition to training women as equal soldiers in our military?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I'm just struggling to see how you don't realise your opinion is sexist. Believing that women are weak creatures that need protecting is not chivalrous, it is actively detrimental to their place in society, as it paints them as less-capable and less-independent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is it entirely. Without any direction or coaching or other influence from anybody, little boys, who will play with dolls at all, play with them entirely differently than do little girls. Little girls enjoy playing with model cars and such as much as little boys, but little boys will almost always make motor sounds when they are playing. Little girls don't. And you watch little boys grow up side by side with little girls, even though they are treated exactly the same, and you watch the differences develop between the genders. It isn't something that is ordered culturally or socially. It just happens.

For this to be ignored or artificially engineered out of some sort of notion of political correctness does no service to either gender, and will almost always make them less happy, less confident, less sure of their place in the world than was the case when men were allowed to be men--expected to be men--and women were allowed to be women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom