6 ms·
Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women
by diath 6mo ago
Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women are well capable of.
- shin_lao 6mo agoLook at the Ukraine war. Who is being drafted against their will?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- hulitu 6mo agoEverybody. Do you have some statistics ?
- throw_m239339 6mo ago> Everybody. Do you have some statistics ? This is false, overwhelmingly MALES. For a time, males couldn't leave Ukraine, while females could. Those who go to die on the front in all wars are mostly males. Doesn't mean that females aren't casualties as well, they are.
- Argonaut998 6mo agoI haven’t seen any women be bussed or blown up with a drone yet. Are you sure this is the case?
- dudul 6mo agoAlways funny to see the most blatant lies be so forcefully put forward. Men were drafted while women were evacuated to the West. There are literal videos of that all over the place.
- jameslk 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability
- itsyonas 6mo agoHonestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.
- unsupp0rted 6mo agoThat's a non-sequitur to the question. And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again
- itsyonas 6mo ago> That's a non-sequitur to the question. How so? Why isn't the question 'Why is anyone being forced at all?' Their question assumes that someone has to be forced, which I fundamentally disagree with, so they should justify that assumption first. > And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again Correct. They are equal, so I don't think either men or women should be forced.
- mothballed 6mo agoWell women are the rate limiting factor in having more men produced for war fodder. It probably makes more sense to ban birth control at the same time men are required to die for the war machine as both would then be playing out their slavery-induced biological role in ensuring survival of the nation. That is if you're down with the whole slavery for war thing.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- missedthecue 6mo agoBiologically true, but probably not in practice. Do we think Ukraine will compell women to repopulate postwar? It won't happen.
- hobofan 6mo agoBecause CDU is the government.
- jchip303 6mo ago[dead]
- DiscourseFan 6mo agoI agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons: 1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster. 2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory. In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).
- diath 6mo agoEasier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
- agrishin 6mo agoWell, you see, if men stay alive, but women are killed, society collapses eventually as not enough new people are born. It sucks being a man in this scenario, but it is what it is.
- parchley 6mo agoAnd if you include women (well, all genders) directly in the war efforts you double the amount of soldiers you have, which would increase your chance of winning and not needing to repopulate.
- rvnx 6mo agoIf you refuse to fight, you lose. If you all agree to refuse to fight, you win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma The key here is to refuse fighting. Nobody becomes a hero by becoming a murderer whose goal is to defend the political power of Stalin, Napoleon, Bush, or whoever.
- cubefox 6mo ago[flagged]
- _cenw 6mo ago[flagged]
- cubefox 6mo agoI reject your accusation of transphobia. I point out that you seem to be fine with discriminating against some males but not others.
- _cenw 6mo agoTrans women are not male, including biologically if you assume HRT. This is overcompensating rationality to shit on a group of people that are functionally intersex for "biological" distinction. And we're not even talking about a context where biology matters. You just wanted to vice signal. If you want to make this an SBGG criticism, I'd love to see you even get close to proving abuse beyond singular instances. Even all the right-wingers that said they'd change their gender marker to make a point did not. Because people don't do that lightly.
- jadamson 6mo agoSetting aside arguments over biology, avoiding getting sent to war to be blown to pieces wouldn't be a "light" reason to consider claiming gender diversity.
- _cenw 6mo agoSBGG has an exclusion carved out for people who share this opinion (not me). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sbgg/__9.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sbgg/__9.html
- 6mo ago
- fabian2k 6mo agoBecause it would take a change to the constitution to do that while reinstating the old draft laws only takes a regular majority in parliament. The draft is a severe limitation of personal freedom, so you can't just do that by law. The draft for men is already enabled in the constitution, the draft for woman isn't. At this moment, changing the constitution is not possible, there is no majority for this. So that pretty much took the option to change the broader parameters out of the discussion entirely.
- analog31 6mo agoCan it be challenged under the European constitution?
- rvnx 6mo agoI wouldn't trust the European Union to be the one that will challenge that German mobilization register at all. COVID-19 has proven that if anything, the European Union tends to spread national initiatives among other countries (and Germany is often a leader in EU). In this specific case, the EU is more likely to be the type of organization that would think about how to create a unified permit -> as they did with the EU Digital COVID certificate; some sort of "I am in the register of mobilization" / "have a temporary travel authorization". So, EU might be an enemy that pretends to be your friend there.
- mytailorisrich 6mo agoThat's interesting because on the face of it this none of the EU's business... but also typical of the EU and EU governments to expand what is thr EU's business little by little.
- QuantumNomad_ 6mo agoThe whole existence of the EU has its background in the end of WWII. > 18 April 1951 – European Coal and Steel Community > Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past. The six are Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The European Coal and Steel Community comes into being in 1952. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor... Why wouldn’t a unified permit to prove you registered for mobilization be relevant to what the EU is for?
- MrsPeaches 6mo ago> For women, answering the questions is voluntary, as they cannot be required to perform military service under the Constitution. Specially article 12a Paragraph 4: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... Specifically it says: If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.
- mikkupikku 6mo ago[flagged]
- gertop 6mo agoMost of the opposition to women in the army comes from conservatives, not from feminists. They imagine themselves injured in the trenches in need of being carried by a fellow soldier, and they conclude that women are too weak.
- cjbgkagh 6mo agoIn measuring grips strength, which is a good proxy for general strength, 90% of females producing less force than 95% of males. In other words almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
- eesmith 6mo agoIf that factoid were at all important then the military should use grip strength to determine who to draft, not gender.
- cjbgkagh 6mo agoI’m vehemently against the draft in general. I saw this war coming over a decade ago and live as an expat in part to avoid being press ganged into drone target duty. Grip strength is a proxy for general strength, and I think it’s safe to assume strength is important in combat.
- eesmith 6mo agoYes, calling one's self "expat" instead of "immigrant" sounds exactly like what someone who goes elsewhere to avoid taxes and draft service, while driving up the local housing market and enjoying cheap labor, would do. Again, if strength is important, then use strength as the draft criteria, not gender. And, you do realize that the vast majority of the military aren't combat troops, right? Drone operator duty doesn't require high grip strength. Logistics managers don't require high general strength. Is your sexism blinding you to the female soldiers who served in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan? What do you think they were doing if not being soldiers?
- School-Cotton 6mo agoThere is an actual answer to this, don’t listen to the random people replying saying stuff like “because the CDU is in power” or whatever. The actual answer is because the constitutional instrument that allows conscription (Artikel 12a Grundgesetz) is explicitly limited to men. Therefore women are not subject to conscription in Germany, unless the constitution is changed. Perhaps if the constitution were written today instead of in 1949 it would include women too.
- BoredPositron 6mo agoYou are misinformed and it is pretty much because of the CDU/CSU. There was a chance to change it with the help of the CDU just after the election but before the last government got dissolved the CDU objected...
- School-Cotton 6mo agoCan you give a link to what you’re talking about?
- atomicnumber3 6mo agoA lot of draft laws haven't been touched in a long time and aren't updated for modern gender politics. Though I do wonder if they'll actually get updated ever - no politician wants to touch it and it's not like anyone is screaming for the right to be forced to go die in war. It's always weird to me how surprised women are that every single man they know has had to specifically, actually physically ink paper to sign up for the draft. It definitely feels weird/spooky when you do it, given the implications and that despite being compulsory it's not automatically done for you.
- hallh 6mo agoDenmark made drafts mandatory for women last year.
- lysace 6mo agoThe same in Sweden since 2017. To clarify: every young person regardless of gender is legally obliged to go through fitness testing for conscription and if deemed suitable must go through it if selected. I imagine it’s roughly similar in Denmark? Up until the fall of the USSR ~all men did go through conscription/basic military training. After the fall only the ones that wanted to and were selected did. Now it’s ramping up massively.
- pjmlp 6mo agoIn Portugal as well, both genders get listed when their time comes up.
- dmitrygr 6mo agoTie draft registration to voting registration. Equality before law, and all that
- overfeed 6mo agoService guarantees citizenship (rights). I am doing my part! https://youtu.be/jO1vWxUqpFI https://youtu.be/jO1vWxUqpFI
- yorwba 6mo agoBecause the constitution only allows drafting men: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0069 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... The intersection of parties wanting to reinstate compulsory military service and parties supporting gender equality doesn't currently have the necessary supermajority to change the constitution. So we get a wishy-washy compromise, as is so often the case in democracies.
- einpoklum 6mo ago> Why does it exclude women? In addition to the legal point regarding the constitution: A lot less people in those roles you listed, die. The compulsion is necessary for the state to get enough people to go die - or at least, seriously risk their lives - for it on the battlefield.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- stephbook 6mo agoAccording to the constitution, women can be drafted into hospitals. Look at $$4. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_12a.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_12a.html You could of course require women to register, too. In case of war, they'll be drafted into hospitals. They just don't want to.
- baxtr 6mo agoStarting 2026, Ukraine at least has restrictions on women leaving the country as well. Women in the civil service, law enforcement agencies, or those registered in the military and serving under contract may face restrictions on traveling abroad, particularly for non-official purposes.
- AdrianB1 6mo agoYou mean "some women in specific situations", not women in general. 2 weeks ago my cousin's wife and her 2 daughters got in an out for my aunt's funeral, in Ukraine. She is 50 years old, former teacher, no restrictions, the daughters are in the early 20, no restrictions either.
- baxtr 6mo agoYes, you’re right. I could have been more specific I thought it was obvious with the second paragraph
- ashleyn 6mo agoRight, a lot of the draft law being male-only reflects a combination of the reality that, relatively speaking, not much war has been waged since the end of WW2, and that much of contemporary gender equality is still somewhat new on a historical basis. So they're really just out of date laws with not much of an impetus to update, at least until recently. The worldwide trend is pretty clearly in the direction of making service and conscription, where needed, more gender agnostic. There are still some realities that don't really change here, such as men being most useful for direct combat, so even if women are conscripted it's likely they'll still avoid much of the worst of warfare simply by virtue of not qualifying for stringent standards.
- t0bia_s 6mo agoWhat about man that has gender woman in papers?
- rvnx 6mo agoSaved, can freely enjoy cocktails on the beach. The registered gender is the one that counts.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- ashleyn 6mo agoGoing to assume this phrasing is an awkward translation, but we can see how this works out in tolerant nations with conscription like Thailand. Typically, trans women who are already on a medical pathway are medically excluded from military service. This is less an affirmation of who they are by the military and more of a frank admission that their current state could never be made combat-ready. It's likely that even if SHTF, this would remain the status quo, because it's difficult to imagine draft resisters taking estrogen simply to avoid service. Even if treatment is largely done via informed consent, medical exclusion would likely require blood levels be in a certain range, or certain surgeries performed.
- ben_w 6mo agoIDK about legal situation, but I know people who transitioned in both directions and they tell me that the hormones they take do make a big difference to strength and resiliance.
- Janicc 6mo agoAs far as I know as long as the change was made outside of an ongoing conflict and it's reasonable to assume it wasn't done to evade a potential one, it would actually protect you from being sent to your death
- duxup 6mo agoI suspect the end result is just, no political will for that at this point.
- bilsbie 6mo agoSeems crazy that women can vote to send men to war.
- logicchains 6mo agoNo crazier than that the old can vote to send the young to war.
- SauntSolaire 6mo agoA little crazier — the old were once young, and could have been voted into a war themselves.
- Ylpertnodi 6mo agoAnd yet the vast majority of combat veterarans are very anti-war.
- HappyPanacea 6mo agoWhich combat veterans?
- dranudin 6mo agoMy grandpa (ww2) was one of them. He helped my father dodge the draft, when he was supposed to go to military service.
- a3w 6mo agoTrans people exist. So: Some women were treated by law as "once men, and could have been voted into a war themselves Footnote: But not necessarily felt to be correctly labeled men, ever in life.
- hypertele-Xii 6mo agoBody dysmorphia is a mental illness.
- globular-toast 6mo agoWomen have been treated similarly to children. Fewer rights, but also fewer responsibilities. Feminists are very vocal about the rights but not too bothered about the responsibility.
- AdrianB1 6mo agoBecause of the equality implementation.
- jandrewrogers 6mo agoMost roles in the military require ad hoc applications of brute strength to do the job competently even if it isn't per se part of the job description. This includes things like operating vehicles, desk jobs, etc. In the military context, almost every job must be performed in the field or in the absence of (working) machinery. You still must be capable of carrying the equipment load-out for your role on your back. The inability of women as a class to do this effectively has been a longstanding issue. Everyone is at risk of being thrust into combat situations due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. The "rear echelon" can suddenly find themselves no longer in the rear. All of which is separate from the question of the use of conscription generally. In the US there is a separate gender-agnostic authority that allows the US to impress someone into non-military service for (IIRC) 6 months.
- samus 6mo agoNone of this disqualifies women from service. Of course, special forces and frontline troops will face these challenges day-to-day, but women who can't handle this will simply wash out from those. Which is not a big problem; only a tiny percentage of the military comprises these.
- jandrewrogers 6mo agoIt affects a far broader swath of military roles than you are imagining and you are regularly required to assume secondary roles, few of which are anything like their civilian counterparts. This is the issue long-recognized by the military from experience. It isn’t an arbitrary disqualification of women. Even combat units don’t deal with these challenges day-to-day but they occur often enough for most roles that you need to be capable. I am against all conscription on principle but I know why militaries made the pragmatic choice to selectively target men even if I don’t agree with it. These things have been studied to death, been put into practice by many countries, and the solutions are all quite bad in their own way. Strict gender-blind standards drives strong gender segregation by role which in practice produced adverse second-order consequences. Also political blowback in a number of countries because the roles most women could qualified for in practice were perceived as lower status. Unequal standards create a whole raft of other social and operational problems. To put it another way, all of these problems exist even in the absence of conscription.
- throwiuhh 6mo agoYou sound sexist to assume women lack physical strength. In this day and age they are capable of fighting.