Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Conscription for women

334 replies

Mambo19866 · 24/01/2024 06:26

I’ve just read what the head of Army has announced on DM that it’s likely conscription is to return if the conflict with Russia escalates. Reading up on it and asking some people who I believe are in the know they seem to think this might be first war where women will be expected to fight on the front line. I’m going to be honest this terrifies me is anyone else ready to die in a ditch in Russia somewhere? I thought these days were over but apparently even with atom bombs we still have to duke it out the old fashioned way.

OP posts:
MyopicBunny · 24/01/2024 22:14

Men commit more crimes, and also more serious crimes. that's why more men are in prison. Men are more likely to be killers and sex offenders. Again, it goes back to basic biology.

Tatumm · 24/01/2024 22:14

BarelyLiterate · 24/01/2024 21:49

These are ‘luxury beliefs’. Self-indulgent principles for the privileged.

There is no identity politics in a war zone. Other than ‘friend’ & ‘enemy’.

It’s this kind of sneering that is contributing to the divisions in society. Young people aren’t stupid. If you think that the younger generation with their ‘luxury beliefs’ would fight to protect you in a war, you’re deluded.

IncompleteSenten · 24/01/2024 22:17

I wish the people who declare the wars were the ones who had to fight them.
We'd soon see how much war was wanted if they had to go out there themselves instead of ordering young men to their deaths.

MyopicBunny · 24/01/2024 22:17

Mysterian · 24/01/2024 22:12

Russia are no threat.
Massive corruption and lack of investment has lead to their prized aircraft carrier falling to pieces and becoming unusable.
They rely on throwing huge numbers of poorly trained soldiers and tanks at the enemy. The tanks have to be basic enough for poorly trained people to drive and are severely outdated and can be easily destroyed from above via hand-held rockets the Ukrainians own designed to do just that. Some of the latest Russian soldiers are being sent to the front without ever holding a gun.
Russia might just be able to scrape a win in Ukraine but against any western country's army it would be a humiliating disaster for them.

I agree. Putin thought that he'd be able to win that war in days.... it didn't turn out so well for him.

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 24/01/2024 22:19

gocompare · 24/01/2024 21:59

@Mambo19866 sex does need to be considered though.

Traditionally, Special forces are men.

Because of their physical and mental attributes. Not all but for some things men are better suited because of that.

Just as women as better suited to other things or other ops or specific situations because of their mental or physical attributes.

Ie in some countries they have women operatives who are sent in because they know men will accept them. Red sparrow film etc etc.

I'm a feminist. I'm ex forces. I'm all for equality but I have had to accept that some things are better suited to males and vice Versa.

Whether we like it or not, physically we are different and come with different limitations and risks in the case of war.

If we don't recognise this then, it will be seen as a weakness in a war like situation and the enemy will use that.

It is what it is.

Special forces or not it all still applies.

Absolutely.

All the things that can happen to men in war can happen to women too. Plus the risk of rape. Which will overwhelmingly affect more women than men.

Then factor in taking a large chunk of the female population out of counting for gestating babies either because they are dead or because their injuries means they will struggle to get pregnant. Suddenly your future repopulation has a problem.

It's not as simple as "you want equality but think your fannyy gets you out of fighting " Confused

IdleAnimations · 24/01/2024 22:25

Tatumm · 24/01/2024 22:14

It’s this kind of sneering that is contributing to the divisions in society. Young people aren’t stupid. If you think that the younger generation with their ‘luxury beliefs’ would fight to protect you in a war, you’re deluded.

I think younger people (including my own generation - elder millenial) haven’t known true hardship and have had the chance to delve/ponder the ‘self’ and identity which is for the privileged in safe countries. It’s why so many of these groups flock here and to our European neighbours. We are immensely privileged to even be able to have our own beliefs.

When it comes to war, it’s about them and us. It’s brutal, there’s no time for kindness as we’ve witnessed with the recent conflicts. Talk to any forces member whose been on tour, it’s about survival not feelings. I believe that was what the original comment was alluding to.

Boomboom22 · 24/01/2024 22:39

Op you have now shown yourself to be an MRA.
What a load of absolute tosh in your last post. We very much do still live in a patriarchy and men are not worse off than women. Bs. Your examples are total nonsense too, because it's men who cause all these problems with fir themselves or for other men.

It's very clear many on here don't understand equality, fwr, or even why we have the ea.

Are we really now in a situation where some women believe men have it worse?

Mummyofbananas · 24/01/2024 22:50

No but it creates divide, us and them, makes people willing to fight for what they believe in.

MyopicBunny · 24/01/2024 22:52

Your examples are total nonsense too, because it's men who cause all these problems with for themselves or for other men.

This occurred to me as well..,

Tatumm · 24/01/2024 22:55

IdleAnimations · 24/01/2024 22:25

I think younger people (including my own generation - elder millenial) haven’t known true hardship and have had the chance to delve/ponder the ‘self’ and identity which is for the privileged in safe countries. It’s why so many of these groups flock here and to our European neighbours. We are immensely privileged to even be able to have our own beliefs.

When it comes to war, it’s about them and us. It’s brutal, there’s no time for kindness as we’ve witnessed with the recent conflicts. Talk to any forces member whose been on tour, it’s about survival not feelings. I believe that was what the original comment was alluding to.

Edited

Yes - survival not feelings.

Young people will focus on their own survival if it comes to it.

They won’t feel obligated to assist with the survival of their elders, who look down on them.

IdleAnimations · 24/01/2024 23:06

Tatumm · 24/01/2024 22:55

Yes - survival not feelings.

Young people will focus on their own survival if it comes to it.

They won’t feel obligated to assist with the survival of their elders, who look down on them.

All generations look down on the next, especially as hardship lessons through the generations if you’re lucky to live in certain countries. I was lucky enough to know my great grandmother who remembered the war, I was soft as anything to her because I had what she didn’t. But her mother would say the same to her in the Victorian times!

If you’re not going to protect your elder family members because as has been normal for all of us, they don’t get your ways and might call you soft or dare to disagree, then frankly you’re proving their point that identity is shallow, self involved and a privilege in times of hardship.

Emma8888 · 25/01/2024 00:41

I'm a woman and I served in the military. In fact, I was front line at a time when we had 'no women front line troops'. Because it turns out the military needed women at the front line for precisely some of the reasons raised on this thread.

I was trained in the search and detention women. Enemy combatants got wise to the fact men would not search women which led to women being the ones who carried information, weapons, etc. (some willingly, others under duress). So the British (and other nations) realized they had to have women to perform the searches (or be accused of sexual assault, rape, etc. which are war crimes). So they brought women to the front lines - at the time never under an infantry / cavalry cap badge, but attached to those troops. Other units that had both men and women such as logistics, artillery, intelligence also performed front line roles. We all managed to have periods (or not, I ran birth control back to back), and have babies (you were returned to base if you told them you were pregnant, there was a line drawn there, but many women concealed it until there was no hiding as they didn't want to RTU). No one I served with was raped by an enemy combatant that I am aware of.

Yes, rape is a possibility if women are captured (solider or civilian). But the vast majority of military personnel are never captured - pow numbers are tiny. If they are captured you have to remember that whatever propaganda you've read, most serving soldiers are normal humans - how many men do you know in your lives that would rape a vulnerable woman? Enemy soldiers are not, for the most part, monsters. But the very small number there are are the ones who make the news or, more often, are used by media to stir up a frenzy. Most armies have civilized hierarchical structures, with people like me charged with absolute adherence to the rules of warfare. Treating prisoners correctly, ensuring the protection of soldiers and civilians.

Someone up thread asked if rape was worse than other torture as a pow. Fortunately I never found out but for sure I thought about it, and I determined (as did many others because we discussed it) that rape was quite far down the 'worst options' list based on what else went on in some places (though frankly some of the worst was from allied forces not the enemy).

In terms of skills, people are overly focused on speed and strength. Modern warfare is far more about strategy. And women are very good at that as a rule - IME women outperformed men in pure tactical exercises almost every time - whether it is biology (women are, objectively better at visualizing things and thinking about multiple steps down a chain apparently) or whether we all felt obliged to be better than the men around us as we faced overt sexism every day in our roles, it is hard to say. Women can also be great shots, great drivers, excel in artillery, be fantastic at signals, all of which are needed at the front line.

To answer the question no, I don't think conscription is likely. People who don't want to be there / aren't fit / aren't trained are liabilities. They'll give away your position, take more troops to deal with them being injured and put others in danger. No serviceman or woman wants conscription. Trench warfare is a thing of the past. Holding a field is not a good use of lives. Modern warfare does however need manpower in built up areas to clear buildings, because it is against all the rules of armed conflict to indiscriminately bomb the shite out of them (yes Israel I am talking to you). So you need people to clear urban areas of enemy troops / insurgents. Turns out women are pretty good in urban warfare. They are generally of smaller build, able to crawl more easily in tunnels, sewers, etc. Able to blend in to civilian populations far more easily than a man of fighting age. Equally able as men at setting explosive charges. So if there were conscription yes, I think it applies to both genders, and duties should be assigned based on aptitude- many men in their 20s can't tie their shoelaces, and many women in their 20s are gym bunnies - all this weaker sex as a defence is codswallop.

Finally, I don't feel nearly as scared of Russia as I did in the 80s. I think most of those who think the sky is falling are too young to remember four minute warnings and what would happen during a nuclear winter. I'm guessing my grandparents felt the same way about me, having lived through other terrible times.

Emma8888 · 25/01/2024 00:42

Oh, also, I don't think conscription would be the way to get engagement - it would be influencers on social media that would have teens / 20s volunteering instead. Don't underestimate peer pressure.

deydododatdodontdeydo · 25/01/2024 08:24

Great post @Emma8888 from someone who actually knows what front line combat is about.

deydododatdodontdeydo · 25/01/2024 08:25

It doesn't make rape better or worse it's just another thing that can be used. It's Something that can only be used against a women.

I read a horrible article about male victims of rape in some conflict in Africa where one of the victims described being tied to a tree for weeks and "used" whenever his captors felt like it.
Not only against women.

MyopicBunny · 25/01/2024 09:23

Emma8888 · 25/01/2024 00:41

I'm a woman and I served in the military. In fact, I was front line at a time when we had 'no women front line troops'. Because it turns out the military needed women at the front line for precisely some of the reasons raised on this thread.

I was trained in the search and detention women. Enemy combatants got wise to the fact men would not search women which led to women being the ones who carried information, weapons, etc. (some willingly, others under duress). So the British (and other nations) realized they had to have women to perform the searches (or be accused of sexual assault, rape, etc. which are war crimes). So they brought women to the front lines - at the time never under an infantry / cavalry cap badge, but attached to those troops. Other units that had both men and women such as logistics, artillery, intelligence also performed front line roles. We all managed to have periods (or not, I ran birth control back to back), and have babies (you were returned to base if you told them you were pregnant, there was a line drawn there, but many women concealed it until there was no hiding as they didn't want to RTU). No one I served with was raped by an enemy combatant that I am aware of.

Yes, rape is a possibility if women are captured (solider or civilian). But the vast majority of military personnel are never captured - pow numbers are tiny. If they are captured you have to remember that whatever propaganda you've read, most serving soldiers are normal humans - how many men do you know in your lives that would rape a vulnerable woman? Enemy soldiers are not, for the most part, monsters. But the very small number there are are the ones who make the news or, more often, are used by media to stir up a frenzy. Most armies have civilized hierarchical structures, with people like me charged with absolute adherence to the rules of warfare. Treating prisoners correctly, ensuring the protection of soldiers and civilians.

Someone up thread asked if rape was worse than other torture as a pow. Fortunately I never found out but for sure I thought about it, and I determined (as did many others because we discussed it) that rape was quite far down the 'worst options' list based on what else went on in some places (though frankly some of the worst was from allied forces not the enemy).

In terms of skills, people are overly focused on speed and strength. Modern warfare is far more about strategy. And women are very good at that as a rule - IME women outperformed men in pure tactical exercises almost every time - whether it is biology (women are, objectively better at visualizing things and thinking about multiple steps down a chain apparently) or whether we all felt obliged to be better than the men around us as we faced overt sexism every day in our roles, it is hard to say. Women can also be great shots, great drivers, excel in artillery, be fantastic at signals, all of which are needed at the front line.

To answer the question no, I don't think conscription is likely. People who don't want to be there / aren't fit / aren't trained are liabilities. They'll give away your position, take more troops to deal with them being injured and put others in danger. No serviceman or woman wants conscription. Trench warfare is a thing of the past. Holding a field is not a good use of lives. Modern warfare does however need manpower in built up areas to clear buildings, because it is against all the rules of armed conflict to indiscriminately bomb the shite out of them (yes Israel I am talking to you). So you need people to clear urban areas of enemy troops / insurgents. Turns out women are pretty good in urban warfare. They are generally of smaller build, able to crawl more easily in tunnels, sewers, etc. Able to blend in to civilian populations far more easily than a man of fighting age. Equally able as men at setting explosive charges. So if there were conscription yes, I think it applies to both genders, and duties should be assigned based on aptitude- many men in their 20s can't tie their shoelaces, and many women in their 20s are gym bunnies - all this weaker sex as a defence is codswallop.

Finally, I don't feel nearly as scared of Russia as I did in the 80s. I think most of those who think the sky is falling are too young to remember four minute warnings and what would happen during a nuclear winter. I'm guessing my grandparents felt the same way about me, having lived through other terrible times.

Thanks for such an interesting and informative post. I think you're of the opinion that conscripts of either sex would be a hindrance if they didn't want to be there or are untrained / unfit? It's true that gymming is an ingrained part of popular culture these days, I agree.

During the last Iraq war, I do remember reports of their own women being sent out by Iraqi forces, carrying things against their will so your post triggered that memory.

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 25/01/2024 09:27

Emma
A really interesting post, thank you and I appreciate your perspective and experience.

I think we still need to consider that while yes in terms of rape NAMALT therefore Not All Soldiers Are Like That, rape is an additional risk and used as a weapon so it's is an additional risk. I am an ex Army Brat and whilst dad was stationed in Cyprus and I was a young teen in the space of 2.5 years I experienced sexual assault three times from serving soldiers. Carried out with an air of "her dads low ranking so she won't report because of the fuss it'll make". And I didn't report and to this day my dad doesn't know it happened.
The mood amongst those men and their friends was, it's a party island, they will be gone in a few years and all these women are "up for it" so fair game.
But overwhelmingly these crimes are committed by men against women and even more so when it's perceived there will be no consequences.

I mentioned it up thread but The War on Women by Sue Lloyd Roberts details quite harrowingly how it's used deliberately in combat.

I appreciate your experience is so much more than many on this thread have but I don't think we can dismiss this additional risk as so many here are point blank doing.

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 25/01/2024 09:29

deydododatdodontdeydo · 25/01/2024 08:25

It doesn't make rape better or worse it's just another thing that can be used. It's Something that can only be used against a women.

I read a horrible article about male victims of rape in some conflict in Africa where one of the victims described being tied to a tree for weeks and "used" whenever his captors felt like it.
Not only against women.

To be fair posters on the whole haven't said only, just most commonly.

You can't dismiss it because it sometimes happens to men too.

Beastlylittleparasite · 25/01/2024 12:09

@helpfulperson there are several little countries which don’t even have a military. They are at no risk of invasion because they have nothing which is valued by the capitalist world. They absolutely won’t get involved in any wars. Huge shift in lifestyle required to adapt, but they’re perfectly nice places to live. mostly little islands in the South Pacific and Caribbean I live in London atm and I detest everything about it, I haven’t left the house for a couple of weeks because I hate it so much ( people pay millions to live in my area and I can’t stand the place 🤣) so I’d be delighted to move to an isolated shack in a rainforest somewhere. I’d go now if the kids were game.

Version · 26/01/2024 03:51

In today's army men and women are equals, so yes they would be treated the same.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Very funny.

Version · 26/01/2024 04:07

puncheur · 24/01/2024 09:41

@makeanddo if we got to the point of conscription I imagine the Equality Act and much other legislation would be suspended and the government would grant itself absolute immunity from legal action. This is normal in times of war. See also rationing, food price fixing, suspension of all debt reclamations, evictions, repossessions, internment without trial for troublemakers. Basically you direct the entire country’s economic effort towards the war, with no distractions.

And this is why we need a proper constitution to protect our most fundamental rights so that UK Governments can't withdraw them on a whim, or for some other absurd project that nobody sane would pursue and it is obviously will be a disaster (e.g. Brexit), or justify such a withdrawal of rights based on a war, or continually impose Prime Ministers and Governments on us who think they can pursue whatever nefarious schemes they dream up that have no legitimate democratic mandate.

I don't know why anybody would "read" the Daily Fail and take its hyperbole and catastrophising seriously however, us not having a clear constitution puts us all at risk and this thread highlights very clear why that is the case.

VinegarTrio · 26/01/2024 07:16

Whenever I see claims that a written constitution would help, I think about the USA and the mess they are in over gun control because of things written into their constitution a long time ago.

I dread to think what ‘rights’ activist groups and foolish politicians would slip into a written constitution that would turn out to be a nightmare for generations to come.

IdleAnimations · 26/01/2024 08:07

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

jayjayson · 27/01/2024 11:54

I don’t think women should have to fight, men start wars not women, no woman has ever started a war, it’s testosterone and ego, so no women shouldn’t have to fight, it’s bad enough women have to endure the consequences of the wars silly men start but no they shouldn’t be forced to get involved and potentially killed in a war they never wanted to have.

TheCadoganArms · 27/01/2024 12:59

jayjayson · 27/01/2024 11:54

I don’t think women should have to fight, men start wars not women, no woman has ever started a war, it’s testosterone and ego, so no women shouldn’t have to fight, it’s bad enough women have to endure the consequences of the wars silly men start but no they shouldn’t be forced to get involved and potentially killed in a war they never wanted to have.

There was me thinking wars between nations or groups arise over political and economic interests, control over resources, territory, political power, religious or cultural domination. But no, its silly men, testosterone and egos.