Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Note that in addition to accepting my terms, he has also accepted by spelling of the word exemption as "excemption" so I should not be penalized in points for this egregious error in the title. Openning Statements: My argument is that all citizens share an equal burden in ensuring the future success of their society; the task of upholding and defending civilization cannot fall more heavily on some than others. The United States upholds a law that permits the government to conscript soldeirs to supplement the voluntary Armed Forces in a time of great need. This requires those able bodied citizens of the appropriate age to risk their survival and physical well being in the defense of the society in which they go about their day to day lives. Whether or not conscription is ethical or violates the rights of individuals is a serious question, but this does not change the fact that in order to ensure the continued success of a society it is often necessary to wage war against dangerous adversaries. It is obvious that everyone in the United States benefited greatly from the victory over the Axis powers in World War II, a victory that many conscripted soldiers gave their lives for. Why, then, should everyone in the country not be required to contribute equally to such a profoundly important and costly effort as the waging of war? In the United States, the Selective Service System requires that only male citizens register, and only male citizens can be drafted. For what reason should able bodied women of the same age not be required to make the same sacrafices to ensure the continued existence of their nation? This exemption is, a best, based on antiquated notions of female weakness or the deep-seated delusion that the lives of women are intrinsically more valuable than those of men. There is no practical or ethical reason to support this blatant act of discrimination. Argument One: Sexual Dimorphism Does Not Play A Significant Role In Military Utility The go-to argument in defense of male-only conscription is that due to differences between the sexes, only men are useful for military service. This claim is patently ridiculous for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the differences between individuals often outweigh the differences between the sexes. Suppose, for instance, that size is an important factor in whether or not a person is eligible for military service. The average weight of an American male is 190 pounds and the average weight of an American female is 163 pounds [1]. The differences between individuals vary enough that many men weigh less than the average female and many women weigh more than the average male. I weigh only 145 pounds, should I be exempt from conscription on the grounds of physical frailty? Other supposed male advantages, such as muscle density, likewise vary between individuals significantly. These traits do not necessary play a significant role in how useful someone is to the Armed Forces in any case. Training in hand to hand combat training has been greatly deemphasized in the United States military since World War II because it is used only rarely and in very specialized situations [2,3]. Almost all fighting in modern warfare involves the use of weapons that can very easily kill an enemy and rely primarily on the skill of the operator. A large number of the tasks required by the military do not even require a soldier to fight against the enemy on the ground. Men certainly have no advantage in operating artillery, flying aircraft, or crewing ships. Women are prefectly capable of all of these tasks. That is even beside the noncombat roles that comprise many of the roles in a mechanized army. Approximately a third of the personnel in the US Armed Forces are civilian, and there are many areas included logistics, medicine, and engineering in which women could be useful without having to serve a combat role [4]. Men who are drafted can elect to serve their country in a non-combat position if they object to killing on moral grounds, so there is absolutely no justifiable reason why women should not be required to fill these roles [5]. Argument Two: Practicality and Efficiency By required women to register for the SSS, the United States would effectively double the number of potential conscripts [4]. This would make it considerably easier to raise an army of a given size simply because more potential recruits would be available. It also gives more oppurtunities to replace draft resisters with people who will comply with military service requirements. Furthermore, it would be easier to educate people about the need to register for the SSS and its civil importance if it applied to everyone and not only some people. It is generally inefficient to abitrarily exclude some people from the SSS. Argument Three: Fairness and Civil Equality In the United States, women can vote to elect politicians and female politicians can vote to start a war and instate a draft. These are all policies that place an immense risk on responsibility on the people of the United States, but women play a role in making these decisions safe in the knowledge that they will never be the ones to pay the ultimate price. As women undoubtedly should have an equal role in the decision making in a society, they must share the burdens and responsibilities of these decisions equally. Outdated notions of female frailty and reproductive importance have resulted in women effectively enjoying the rights of protected citizens. The truth of the matter, however, is that women are not fundamentally weak and in need of protection: they are not only capable of sharing the burdens of upholding society but they are obilgated to share them equally. In any project, including the project of maintaining and improving civilzation, women cannot simply be "brought along for the ride" as pretend equals without being given their share of responsibilities. This is patently sexist against both men and women: it puts men in a position where they alone must bear a terrible responsibility, and it suggests that women are not capable of bearing this same burden. A rational society ought not consider "men" and "women" as two separate entities subject to different rules and expectations; the differences between the sexes are far too slight to justify this archiac outlook. Both men and women must simply be considered people; sex needs have no more rule in defining a person's responsibilities and expectations than height or any other physical characteristic. Concluding Statements: The conceptions of sex roles and expectations in the United States are simply outdated and delusional. Sexual dimorphism has had such a profound effect on human psychology that people in the United States built the first aircraft before they granted women the right to vote. As human technology and science advances, we continue to distance ourselves further and further from our animal past and move toward a society of rational beings. If we are to build a human civilization that is based around reason, truth, and justice, we will have to abandon the vestigial traits of our animal past. The ridiculous notions of gender roles and expectations that pervade our society must be one of the first delusions to go, and the best place to start it is at the point of its most profound significance. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...