To have said that women should be drafted equally to men??

[Pukkajones]

Chatting to a group of friends about the state of the world etc and while in theory I’m against conscription and forced national military service I did say that I think it’s right that there is more equality in girls/women being treated the same as boys/men in the countries that have service.
One friend who has 3 teen girls really had a go at me and got very upset. I have a teen boy and teen girl. While I hate the idea of EITHER being forced to enter the military I think they should be treated equally ( roles allowing - ie some combat roles aren’t open to women) if it came to it. ‘it’ being an actual war with Russia and/or its allies.

it got VERY heated, even though I and another friend pointed out that there are many non-combat roles in the military. And that if we did end up in a World War we’d likely have a role in it regardless of sex or age.

YABU - only men should be drafted
YANBU - in the modern world both sexes should serve in the military.

I said the vast majority of women are better than the average man at caring, not all. Some men are amazing carers, some women aren't good carers.
The majority of men are physically stronger than the average woman.
It's not about one sex being better or worse than the other. It's about undeniable differences between the majority of men and women.
There is nothing wrong with people whose characteristics are different than those usually seen in their sex, if anything it's a huge strength so there is no need for you to feel hurt for men who are good at caring, they will receive plenty of admiration for it, probably a lot more than a woman who has the same level of caring skills would.

So if the majority of women are better carers, more emphatic,more patient etc what are the majority of men better at? sorry I’m not niggling but either we have equality or we don’t.

We dont have equality, 3 women murdered a week highlights lack of caring, empathy etc and thats in peace time.
Can only imagine the horror when given the opportunity to kill legitimately
We’d be in mortal danger from our own side

It is a societal issue, not just a matter for each couple. You must realise that on a societal level there is a huge problem with inequality of labour in the home and caring responsibilities falling much more onto female shoulders than men’s. There’s a huge imbalance across society as a whole. This is not something that is easy for each individual woman to solve individually in her own in her own relationship. Think of the issues with employment and earnings after having children, as just one part of it.

We’re already doing it all, rather than having it all as we were promised. Adding an equal draft to the already massively unequal burden would be utterly ridiculous, not to mention unfeasible, as well as unfair.

They're better at fighting, as I said they're stronger.

Also jobs where physical strength may end up saving someone's life, like firefighting or policing.

I don’t believe that women should be drafted, or men come to think of it.

Our lives are not here for governments to play with, and our sons and daughters are not cannon fodder.

While I sympathise with the people of the Ukraine and Russia, my priorities will always be with my own family and people.

My uncle was given asylum here in the late 90s because his home country were trying to force him in the conscription. I’ve asked him what he thinks earlier, he said if it comes to this country he will leave. I suspect if it does come in a heck of a lot of migrants, and those with dual nationality will leave.

To be honest - sadly my thoughts go more towards the females safety amongst their own side! I would worry about rape in the barracks and in the camps.

I have a DH and DS - I'll go full on Anne Frank and hide them in a hole in the wall if I have to.

Theres no way inexperienced civillians are getting dragged into this war to be cannon fodder.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd love to know what happens to the kids when both parents are called up, and who is left to run the country?

Exactly. I dont want my or anyone’s kids having to fight.

Of course nobody wants to send kids to their deaths. But if we’re talking about stopping an existential threat — like what Ukraine is facing — then a society sometimes has to make a hard, collective decision: who is going to take the risk on the front line, and who is going to keep everything running at home so the whole system doesn’t collapse.

Be honest with yourselves for a moment and really think it through: how could that kind of division of responsibility realistically work without the whole society falling apart?

...I know this seems to contradict our ideal of being an egalitarian society...

Well, that’s quite a bad example. It didn’t end well for that family.

Even so, frontline combat roles are unlikely to go to women because of the heightened threat of rape if taken prisoner (rape of women is much, much, much higher than that of men, even in combat situations) and this would be seen as a problem, since women might be a liability.
You will know, however, that Israel has women fighting on the front line. All those taken hostage on Oct 7th 23 report being raped and sexually assaulted.

Last time it happened many of the kids were evacuated to the country and didn't stay with their parents anyway. Although I'm not sure that make sense in a war today since it is so much easier to bomb whole swaves of the country rather than having to focus on the cities given speed of bombers and the payloads.

Parents live in the countryside too. Not just city parents would be conscripted...?

The kids were sent to live the older generation. If people were needed to fight the government would find a way. If people had taken the approach many on this thread are taking 80 years ago we would all be speaking German. Hardly any of us have experienced what it is like to have your whole way of life under threat - the closest we have is observing the Ukraine from afar.

The only children who were offered evacuation where those living in high risk areas. Less than 50% of those children actually were evacuated, so it was far from 'most'. Evacuees were often sent to the homes of people with reserved occupations, such as farming or coal mining, so by no means just the older generation.
There is no way there would be sufficient accommodation for city children in countryside homes, or enough carers for them, so if we were to conscript everyone with childcare responsibilities alongside all those without, then institutions would need to be provided. This would be a long term measure, as there would be children who lost both their parents in the conflict.
The outcomes for children raised in institutions are poor and a government would need to consider not simply dealing with the immediate threat of the war, but also recovery and having a new generation best equipped to rebuild.
Making parenting a 'restricted occupation' for the primary carer parent would seem the most sensible. Which would most likely be the mother.
Because no government is likely to deliberately make things more difficult just to make sure as many women had to fight as men.

I think the most likely outcome is that we would just surrender if there was another invasion. Not enough people would want to fight. We have a very small professional armed forces and don't have the air defences to stop missiles etc. I suspect if it came to it many people would rather be Russian than nuked.

Isn't conscription the solution to not enough people wanting to fight?

I understand what you're saying but that isn't answering the question of whether to make women and men equal in conscription, should there be one. Very many women would need to be caring for children, for the reasons outlined above.

Of course it is. If people won’t volunteer you conscript them and make them fight.

It still has to be the desire of the population. Otherwise there would mutiny and we would surrender. I don't think we have the shared values that we would fight for each other anymore. Nearly every post here is why it should them or their kids. Easier just to be Russian.

Can anyone really see Starmer rallying us together like Churchill. He'd be focused on the "human rights" of the invadersl

I think it’s fine to say that women should have to be equally conscripted into some sort of public service role/ role to help the war effort if there is one.

I think it’s very unreasonable to say biological women should be enlisted to combat roles on equal terms to biological men.

I wonder what sort of people some posters think we would be fighting if we went to war. Those who abide by the rules of war perhaps?

We would be fighting a country like russia that systematically uses rape as a weapon. This relates to be both women and men of course but the crucial difference is that women can be made pregnant and men cannot. You do not conscript someone into a combat role where they can be raped and made pregnant, thus giving your enemy that weapon. That is why conscription of women is (I believe) always wrong.

(And obviously it wouldn’t be practical to test everyone’s fertility so it needs to be blanket women v men)

PS - Just to be clear, I don’t say this from self interest. I have a son and a daughter but my daughter is a Quaker and would never be conscripted to a combat role.

I would happily volunteer my middle aged female self to keep my son from being conscripted but I realise that wouldn’t be an option.