I didn't actually do a persuasive oral (we do our oral SAC on a text - it's so that everyone gets to learn from what everyone else has researched in their oral topic), but for the issues SAC we had to write a persuasive piece and I ended up just writing it in speech form because I find it comes to me most naturally.
Agreed with Taiga on the "persuasive techniques" thing as well - VCE is pretty much about ticking boxes, unfortunately. Disagree with having no transcript though - a worked transcript makes your speech a lot more fluent and your language much more controlled. This isn't to say that I endorse merely reading from a transcript or looking down at it a lot. By all means, if you do write out your entire speech, try to memorise your speech, and always be ready for improvisation if genius suddenly strikes you, but writing out a speech beforehand is invaluable.
---
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to embrace the future.
For centuries – millennia, even – women have been the victims of our society. We have deprived them their rights; from the right to vote, to the right to work in specific fields, it seems that throughout history men have oppressed the bearers of life within our species. We have been ignorant, but in recent years we have finally done something to rectify our forefathers’ faults. The Feminist movement has improved women’s status, and the fight for women is finally beginning to look up.
And now, for the final frontier.
We have not given women everything they deserve. Yes, society has improved, but the present reality is simply not enough. The front line, the barrier protecting our nation, is still entirely male, and without proper justification. This must be rectified, and the Rudd government, in their push for women on the front line, have the right idea. We know that women are not incapable. We know that women are not powerless. To bravely move towards the future, we must eliminate this obstacle to true equality in our society. Simply put, we must allow women to fight for our nation on the front lines, in direct combat positions, for a better Australia and for a better world.
At its heart, ladies and gentlemen, the key to this issue lies simply in necessity: chauvinistic male attitudes aside, there is no good reason not to put capable women in the front lines. As shown by statistics from the ADF, 13% of the ADF is female, and women can already occupy 88% of all positions within the armed forces, including all non-combat ones. Indeed, those women who have already enlisted have been shown to be highly competent. We have women in the army who are trained to use the same weapons as men, who fly helicopters and jets over Afghanistan or Iraq. Why not go a step further? Take note that I am not suggesting we let any green recruit go into direct combat; that would be absurd, for both men and women. What I am asking you to consider, rather, is the study carried out by the Army Times, showing that given enough training most women have the physical attributes necessary for direct combat roles. In this light, it seems absurd to exclude women from the front line. There is no “weakness” in women, nothing in their aptitude or physiology preventing them from being in the army with men. Indeed, it is as though there is no real justification for the current reality other than a Neanderthal-like attitude against women. Can we as Australians really be proud of our nation if we ignore these plain, hard facts relating to women’s potential?
Not only this, but given the symbolism of a move towards true equality, the act of allowing women to fight on the front lines would be a step forward into the modern age. According to a report published by the Parliament of Australia, Canada and Germany are ahead of us, allowing both genders to participate in direct combat – they have gone further than we have in embracing the new world and the light of real justice. This is not because they are intrinsically better than us as nations; rather, it is because we are afraid to let go of tradition. The disgusting policies against women being on the front lines are a vulgarity remaining from the past, nothing more. If we allow women the right to fight in direct combat, we show that we can welcome a new world, a world of equal rights and a world of wonders. This is what we want: our nation, if it is to move towards the future, must recognise that true equality will only come with this allowance for women.
There are still dissenters, of course, and indeed, the notion of allowing women on the front lines is often described as scientifically controversial. The common argument, purported by individuals such as online publisher Helium’s Michael Plovy, is that women in a predominantly male field will cause psychological drama. To quote Plovy, “[P]utting women in and near combat requires a denial of sex differences that could put both men and women at greater risk”. It is claimed that mixed combat units would be less cohesive and successful on the whole than their all-male counterparts due to the lack of comradeship between men and women. Whilst not completely illogical, this view is not nearly as sound as its supporters like to believe, as there is very little evidence for it other than that of the anecdotal kind. Not only this, but the argument fails in addressing an obvious solution: in the event that female and male mingling impacts negatively, why not simply provide the army with single-sex units? In this light, alluding to the potential psychological dangers of allowing women on the front line seems a foolish argument, does it not?
I would not be addressing the full spectrum of detractors if I did not also mention those who appeal to culture for not allowing women to fight in direct combat positions. It is indeed a given fact that traditionally in times long past, men were always the combatants, and that the women were the carers at home; writers, such as Roxanna Latifi of the TCU’s Skiff magazine, have argued that this should still be, and that we “need someone here to keep the country going”. However, to allude to traditional values in this context would be the equivalent of stripping women of their right to vote: surely, just as we have abolished black slavery and public hangings, we can move on from medieval notions preventing women from embracing all opportunities. It seems absurd, given that women can now be engineers and headmasters, that we should prevent them from what is in reality just another vocation. The world has changed, and society and Australia must move forward, away from anachronistic ideals.
The promised time has come, ladies and gentlemen. As we march forward towards a brave new world, women’s rights will become equal to those of men’s. We shall see true equality – a society akin to that of the divine, a society which sees reason and necessity instead of prejudice. For a better future and for a better world, women on the front lines must be the reality: only once our armed forces have embraced the modern age can we claim to be truly civilised.
Home
Help
Search
Login
