3 ms·
> 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 Amer
by 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!
- belorn 7y agoThen we are at an impasse. Men as a group did not choose to force themselves at the threat of gun point to go into trench war fare and die. That is just ridiculous. Young poor men has always been at the bottom of the social ladder.
- foldr 7y ago>Men as a group did not choose to force themselves at the threat of gun point to go into trench war fare and die. As you must be aware, I didn't suggest that this is the case. I simply said that men chose to exclude women from military service.
- belorn 7y agoThe men who got forced into the trench war did not have a choice in who got drafted. People who society deems expendable and at the bottom of the social ladder do not have that power or influence. The people who got excluded from military conscription were women, rich men and men with influence.
- foldr 7y agoBut there were plenty of rich men who volunteered to join the military. Women couldn't, regardless of whether they wanted to. What you're saying is correct, it's just completely irrelevant.
- belorn 7y agoThe usually social ladder puts rich men at top, women in the middle and poor men at the bottom. Sometimes described as a differences in bell curves during gender equality discussions. Poor men, having no influence or power gets conscripted against their will. Women, being in the middle, are exempted from conscription but can't volunteer. Rich men, being at the top of influence and power, was exempted from conscription and also had the choice to volunteer (usually for officer or other high ranking positions). No one denies that the small percent that makes up rich men have more influence and power with more freedom to choose during conscription. Men as a group however is both the poor and the rich. If we only look at the top then we ignore an already marginalized and vulnerable part of the population. Those at the bottom.
- foldr 7y ago>Women, being in the middle [in terms of power and influence], are exempted from conscription This is just a wrong analysis. Women didn't get our of conscription as a result of their power and influence. They were exempted from military service because almost all men, across all classes, were opposed to women serving in the military.
- 7y ago