Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for his reply. Argument One: Sexual Dimorphism My opponent refers to the fact that we agree that women are physically weaker than men, but then goes on to devote much of his argument to reaffirming this. His whole argument completely misses the difference between group and individual traits. Requiring a college degree to be a commissioned officer is equivalent to barring women? One is a minimum standard to be achieved; the other is an innate characteristic that lacks relevance. On an individual basis, it is not logical to deny a woman who meets physical standards entry into the military. On the other hand, it is logical to deny someone a commission for not having a college degree. My opponent’s attempted analogies do not apply because each person can be tested individually. This is not equivalent to credit or a group of products because recruitment is not done wholesale. Both men and women who do not meet physical standards are not allowed entry into the army. This distinction between individuals and groups is ignored by my opponent. His only reason for drafting whites is that blacks are not sufficiently superior in his opinion. If black physical superiority to whites was profound enough, he would have no basis to oppose an all-black military. My opponent reused my source without credit to back this claim. But let us take the problem of groups and individuals further. People who are 5'2" are certainly weaker on average than people who are 6'4". Shall we establish a height standard for military service? However strongly correlated a group characteristic is with physical fitness, the physical fitness of each individual in a group must be assessed individually. Why are the 20% of women who could meet the nominal standard exempt from service because 80% of people who happen to be of same sex as them could not? It goes without saying that some very small people can do many push-ups, complete obstacle courses, and run very fast. I do not see the military emphasizing strict weight-lifting standards, so they are clearly more concerned with fitness than pure strength and size. [10] The SSS is designed to recruit combat soldiers, but it allows men to serve non-combat roles. Drafting women could reduce the need to keep men out of combat for other duties, and some women can serve as combat soldiers. Counterargument: Media Outrage Obviously if more people die, there will be a stronger media response. The point is that women do die in war and there is not a massive social outrage. There is no evidence that the fact that women have been killed is a major factor in opposition to the war in Iraq. [11] I have not disputed the fact that some people value the lives of women more than the lives of men; I have declared it a problem. It is not a problem that will be solved by validating irrational whims. My opponent’s argument boils down to the claim that appeasing primitive instincts to protect child bearers should be prioritized over equality and fairness in an advanced society. Counterargument: Unit Cohesion and Combat Effectiveness Using a draft against Middle Eastern enemies would be unlikely because the US military can easily handle any such threats. Even Iran's military is extremely weak compared to the US's. [4][11] My opponent, not I, is the one who is confused about possible alternatives. He consistently assumes that in any case where female soldiers are not employed, male soldiers could always step in to take their places. Women increase the size of the army; there aren't an unlimited number of men to just replace them. Furthermore, this argument is still advising discrimination against women on the basis of something that is not their fault. Men are not biologically incapable of respecting women and treating them as equals, no matter what my opponent would like us to believe. It is the constant acceptance of this error, both overtly and tacitly, that encourages such sexist behavior. Soldiers have always compromised missions and their own safety to save comrades of the same sex, so protecting women is certainly not their only motivation. Soldiers develop a strong sense of unity that is based on trust and equality, and to suggest that women cannot be a part of such a bond is simply to demean their mental competence. [12] My opponent's source for this argument is a sexist image. Argument Four: Practicality and Efficiency I suggested doubling the number of potential recruits, not doubling the size of the military. If women were admitted by a nominal standard, they would increase number of draftees by 20%. This could alternately be used to keep more men on the homefront, resolving any of my opponent's economic concerns. If keeping the military's size under control is a major priority, why instate a draft? My opponent's arguments assume a state of total war, as in World War II. [13] The United States has a strong enough nuclear arsenal to turn the Earth into a wasteland, so this kind of situation simply will not happen. [14] The draft is used for the purpose of increasing recruitment, so limiting selection to a certain group without a rational basis is counterintuitive. Women are not so useless and incapable that the "expenses of female needs" and "distraction to male soldiers" outweighs their utility. My opponent is basically arguing that because some soldiers can't behave around women and tampons cost a few cents each, female soldiers are a net loss to the military. Argument Five: Civil Equality Throughout this debate, my opponent has compared the drafting of women to drafting children, the elderly, and the disabled. This is absurd: children are not mentally competent, the disabled are not physically competent, and the elderly are not fit for military service for a myriad of reasons. None of these factors apply uniformly to women. The court case that my opponent references ignores that fact that the SSS drafts men for noncombat roles and is it based on the assumption that women cannot serve combat roles, which is not a given. The United States upholds plenty of backwards and irrational policies, so its law is no basis for determining what is right. [15] Under the current law, if a man and a woman are at the exact same level of physical fitness, the man can be drafted but the woman cannot. This is discrimination against both individuals, pure and simple. As my opponent has made abundantly clear, the distinction is based on false notions of female uselessness and inferiority that stem from nothing but differences in average physical fitness, and meanwhile the man is forced to risk his life while someone else is spared the responsibility solely on the basis of her extra X chromosome. Conclusion: My opponent's argument does nothing but fallaciously demean the utility of the female sex, suggesting it is a "physical impairment" in his suggestion that being female is comparable to being disabled. Being female does not impede you quite as much as being confined to a wheelchair, nursing home, or nursery. As long as there is at least one woman who is fast, strong, and fit, she should not be exempt from military service just because other women aren’t as fit. My opponent seems to undervalue the fact that this is largely a matter of principle. The US can annihilate all human life on Earth; maximizing draft effectiveness is a minor priority. It's mostly a matter of principle: women should be expected to register for SS because they should be expected to fulfill the same responsibilities as men. I am strongly opposed to classifying women as a special group of citizens the way the disabled, elderly, and young are. This absolutely encourages, and indeed implicitly condones, the patronization that holds women back. Modern humans are beyond these primitive notions of gender. Irrational double standards must be abandoned if we are to move forward as a society. Sources: In the comments section again.