3 ms·

Historically, the military mostly drafted people, especially if we look at the last 100 years. Conscription has very little to do with choices, and male only co

by belorn 7y ago

Historically, the military mostly drafted people, especially if we look at the last 100 years. Conscription has very little to do with choices, and male only conscription has a long history. There is a good discussion to be had over why conscription has mostly been male only. Is it powerful men wanting to get rid of young expendable men in some form of evolutionary benefit to themselves? It it because of historical benefit of muscle differences? Did women use their power and influence within society to get a pass on conscription? Men did not choose to be forced into the military. People do not generally chose to be forced to the front line and die. It is also worth mentioning that in the US, black males were proportionally drafted in higher rates than white males during the Vietnam war. Most people would agree that white men used their power and influence to get a pass on military service. Maybe the first question to discuss is if being drafted is a benefit or disadvantage in term of power and influence.

foldr 7y ago
Voluntary military service was also male only, so I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on conscription. As you point out, the people in charge were all men. It was up to them to make the rules about who could or couldn't volunteer and who would or wouldn't be conscripted. >Most people would agree that white men used their power and influence to get a pass on military service. This perfectly illustrates my point. That is exactly not how women got a pass on military service. Thus, it misses the point to complain that men disproportionately do certain dangerous jobs. Women have been kept out of those jobs by men, and by sexist attitudes more broadly, not by some kind of inverse sexism that favors women over men.
- belorn 7y ago
  > Voluntary military service was also male only, so I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on conscription. Most worlds armies are conscription, and even the US army had conscription during the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. It culturally defines the military. > This perfectly illustrates my point. No it does not. Men as a group did not keep women out of conscription so men alone could get the privilege of being conscripted. It not a privilege. A better claim is that society pick which ever demographic is most expendable and force them to pick up arms during major conflicts. Young men, especially men of color, is consistently seen as expendable. It is racism, sexism, ageism, and a bunch more isms, and part of it favor women over young men. During world war 2 almost all nations involved used prison population for conscription purposes. It is the most obvious place to find a lot of expendable people. Voluntary military service still carries with it that culture and non-expendable people tend to not be near the front line.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >Most worlds armies are conscription, Yes, but so what? The gender requirement on front-line service has never been limited to conscription. >It not a privilege. This is a well-worn argument. When women wanted to vote and join the workplace, they also got told that these things were terrible burdens that they ought to be glad not to have to bear. Clearly, there are women who do want to join the military, just as there have always been men who want to join the military. In a modern context, in the US and Europe, the question is not about whether women should be forced to serve in the military against their will, but whether they should have the same right to volunteer for service as men, and the same range of opportunities subsequently. Until recently, the men in charge thought that they should not.
    - belorn 7y ago
      > Until recently, the men in charge thought that they should not. Not men as a group. Rich old men thought that poor young men, disproportionately African Americans, should be forced into the military. In modern context we still have remnant views that military is a punishment. Popular culture often use the trope that troublesome boys who don't behave get sent to military school so the boy can redeem themselves in the eyes of society. The concept of military service as a punishment directed at young men is still well alive. One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to military school. In Europe most nation still have conscription. The question has been whether women should be forced to serve in the military against their will. To pick a few examples, both Sweden and Norway think they should, and thus we have conscription there for both genders. As the advertisements says, everyone has equal responsibility to server their nation. The word "responsibility" is used here to make the conscription sound nicer but it no less forced.
      - foldr 7y ago
        >Not men as a group. Of course it was men as a group. You only have to go back a few decades to get to a time when the majority of men, across social classes, found the idea of women serving in the military ridiculous. I still don't see how the rest of your comment is relevant to this discussion. Again, the gender requirement was not specific to conscription. >One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to military school. Because girls couldn't join the military!

by belorn 7y ago

foldr 7y ago

Voluntary military service was also male only, so I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on conscription. As you point out, the people in charge were all men. It was up to them to make the rules about who could or couldn't volunteer and who would or wouldn't be conscripted. >Most people would agree that white men used their power and influence to get a pass on military service. This perfectly illustrates my point. That is exactly not how women got a pass on military service. Thus, it misses the point to complain that men disproportionately do certain dangerous jobs. Women have been kept out of those jobs by men, and by sexist attitudes more broadly, not by some kind of inverse sexism that favors women over men.

belorn 7y ago
> Voluntary military service was also male only, so I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on conscription. Most worlds armies are conscription, and even the US army had conscription during the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. It culturally defines the military. > This perfectly illustrates my point. No it does not. Men as a group did not keep women out of conscription so men alone could get the privilege of being conscripted. It not a privilege. A better claim is that society pick which ever demographic is most expendable and force them to pick up arms during major conflicts. Young men, especially men of color, is consistently seen as expendable. It is racism, sexism, ageism, and a bunch more isms, and part of it favor women over young men. During world war 2 almost all nations involved used prison population for conscription purposes. It is the most obvious place to find a lot of expendable people. Voluntary military service still carries with it that culture and non-expendable people tend to not be near the front line.
- foldr 7y ago
  >Most worlds armies are conscription, Yes, but so what? The gender requirement on front-line service has never been limited to conscription. >It not a privilege. This is a well-worn argument. When women wanted to vote and join the workplace, they also got told that these things were terrible burdens that they ought to be glad not to have to bear. Clearly, there are women who do want to join the military, just as there have always been men who want to join the military. In a modern context, in the US and Europe, the question is not about whether women should be forced to serve in the military against their will, but whether they should have the same right to volunteer for service as men, and the same range of opportunities subsequently. Until recently, the men in charge thought that they should not.
  - belorn 7y ago
    > Until recently, the men in charge thought that they should not. Not men as a group. Rich old men thought that poor young men, disproportionately African Americans, should be forced into the military. In modern context we still have remnant views that military is a punishment. Popular culture often use the trope that troublesome boys who don't behave get sent to military school so the boy can redeem themselves in the eyes of society. The concept of military service as a punishment directed at young men is still well alive. One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to military school. In Europe most nation still have conscription. The question has been whether women should be forced to serve in the military against their will. To pick a few examples, both Sweden and Norway think they should, and thus we have conscription there for both genders. As the advertisements says, everyone has equal responsibility to server their nation. The word "responsibility" is used here to make the conscription sound nicer but it no less forced.
    - foldr 7y ago
      >Not men as a group. Of course it was men as a group. You only have to go back a few decades to get to a time when the majority of men, across social classes, found the idea of women serving in the military ridiculous. I still don't see how the rest of your comment is relevant to this discussion. Again, the gender requirement was not specific to conscription. >One never see the idea of sending misbehaving girls to military school. Because girls couldn't join the military!