Conscription for women

[Mambo19866]

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.

Women are far far less likely to want to go overseas and fight than men. This is true across the world and history (even allowing for participation barriers that used to be in place). There were women who served in extremely dangerous situations in nursing/support roles. Not just Florence Nightingale but Marie von Clausewitz (Clauswitz's wife) and loads of others. But by and large the "going abroad to seek adventure and danger" or to "fight for my country's glory" has always been more of a man thing. Someone had to stay behind to look after the children, farm the food etc anyway. Plus I think there are differences in how we behave sometimes.

BUT when the war feels existential and the army is at the gate, that gender gap narrows massively. Even during the Peloponnesian war 1/4 of the people that stayed behind to help defend the city were women (admittedly non combat but it was certain death if the city fell anyway). And that was in a time of much more rigid gender roles.

What I'm saying is, surveys asking people what they would do/who should be conscripted during peacetime are never accurate - for men and women. Its too abstract. It doesn't really grapple with how close the war would be or peoples emotions (all the people saying "why should white men fight when they've been disparaged for so long etc". In the right circumstances they would.)

@JenniferBooth Italy also suffered really horribly in the aftermath of the battles of Monte Casino (especially but not just women and girls). And it wasn't even considered a war crime at the time because it was allies doing it. :(

But I think a lot of the very real suffering in mainland Europe (and elsewhere) during the war has started to fade from the public consciousness to be replaced by a somewhat jingoistic stories of adventures and derring do by (mostly) men. Not that those stories aren't also true and iportant. But I think there's a natural tendency to remember them rather than the much more harrowing side of war. I think there's lots of people in America for instance who really think a new civil war would be kind of fun. It would not be.

I always thought Carve her Name with Pride was a very moving film about a brave woman. The scene of her little girl collecting her posthumous medal wasn't over done but was terribly moving and really did illustrate the dilemma of being courageous but failing a child who was left an orphan.

I was probably 9 or 10 the first time I saw it but I found it thought provoking even then, could I be that brave? Probably not.

There was a segment about this on Woman's Hour, on radio 4 today. Did anyone hear it?

No woman ever? You know Hannibal and Alexandra the great went to war on the mothers perogative. Not to mention in the holocaust it was well known that in the camps the women were the most sadistic don’t believe me watch some documentaries on auchwitz even the men were horrified what some of them would do. So evil is a human thing not just men

russian soldiers are being sent to the front without ever holding a gun? you should really stop trusting war propaganda. i mean, bbc wrote some time ago that russians are out of ammunition and are fighting with shovels. clearly they are trying to keep support for more spending to help russians and ukrainians kill each other hence such stupid articles all over mainstream media. also, your perception of western armies are largely based on recent conflicts with inferior states, rebbel groups and so on. just look at israel-hesbolah conflict for more information what technologically inferior but determined enemy can do.
that being said, there will be no russian attack on europe. that lie is also peddled to keep support for war in the west.

Yeah, I remember it was the same back in the days of the illegal Iraq war. All sorts being reported and it was impossible to know where the truth lay.

Oh, the shock you'd get under a totalitarian regime.

All the excuses lol.

There are two topics mixed here.
Firstly, there are definitely still inequalities, pay gaps, societal conditioning for women to be cooperative and not leaders. Jail percentage is about different kinds of pits men and women fall into, not a comparative metric.

There is one substantial reason to limit attendance of young women in war operations - ability to birth a child and rebuild population after the war. Everything else is a social/political decision.

About conscripting women - why not? When we talk about potential future wars, big part of conscriptions might be about specialist skills and support roles - from IT, logistics, driving, medics, cooking.
Trenches are still about physicality, but drone operators or snipers are fighting units where while people still need to be physically fit, there are more sex independent aspects.

Do you consider Lithuania/Latvia Europe?

So you want equality. Except if you have to join up?

Why should only men fight? Really?

Why don't you read the whole thread? It seems that people think equality for women means they do all the same things as men. That's not how equality works.

Here's an example.

The amount of alcohol that men can drink per day is more than the amount women can drink per day without damaging their health.

Why would this be?

@Iwasafool I know, my grandfather's father was his only living relative and he still went to fight leading to my grandfather ultimately being orphaned in a strange country (England). I don't know what the "right" thing to do in that case is. I don't think you can know how you would act unless you were in that situation. That goes for women and men. I think arguments about who would/wouldn't fight and who's a hypocrite are silly for that reason.

There are some arguments young women are easier to train as snipers than young men because they are better at concentrating and paying attention. Ironically the same reason girls are thought to do better in our school system. I would be rubbish though because I daydream.

Nah. Europe’s just France, Spain and Germany, innit? Maybe Italy if you’re posh.

@MyopicBunny you're still going with your argument that equality is a pick and mix, for you to choose which bits you want and those you don't. It doesn't look like everyone is on your train! I'm certainly not.

As a pp poster (MyopicBunny it may have been you apologies if I've misremembered) pointed out equality is not saying the sexes are equal all of the time it's also recognising and doing something about, the ways men and women are different to then enable both sexes to do the same things when appropriate.

Therefore part of this is risk assessment. And whether many posters here like it or not both sexes are at danger of injury, torture and death in combat. The additional risk of rape is one which will disproportionately affect women. The more women in war zones the more this will happen. Is happening. And potentially an awful lot of "enemy" offspring being born later down the line. All part of the of the plan.

while they are nato members and nato is functional yes. otherwise who knows.
I take it from this that you agree with the rest of what was posted.

Women, single or widowed without children were conscripted in WWII.

They were not on the front lines but they were working.

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”

Boudicca?

SwordToFlamethrower · 24/01/2024 13:10
**
All the men on here peddling "equal rights" bollocks. I see you fuckers.”

You do understand that some women don’t agree with you?

Interesting. Have you noticed Ukraine is a European country as well? So it doesn't seem like some magical boundary would prevent russia from attacking European countries.

I was just curious what exactly were you claiming. The rest wasn't really worth agreeing or disagreeing with; yes everyone knows only a subset of the situation and every interpretation is simplified. We will still probably disagree about the overall interpretation. Ukrainian nation has shown they are tough, cool and badass, letting russia ridicule itself and surviving something the bloody clown called 3 days operation.
And one of my conclusions is that Ukrainian nation has a hope and vision, something we rarely see in more sheltered West.

I was neutral before the war, but now I want them in both EU and NATO.

that first part about russians without guns and stuff like that is what i really wanted to say.
the second part, well, I wrote that there will be no attack while Ukraine has already been attacked, so I'm technically right. as far as I know, no Russian official has ever mentioned an attack on NATO countries, while Ukraine and the importance of Ukrainian neutrality have been mentioned many times by everyone from Gorbachev to Putin, including the opposition. although a lot has changed in the last two years, I think it still stands. maybe Moldova to take Transnistria in best case for them, but it is not an attack because they are already there.
no attack on any other country while nato exists or (some) of the baltic states in danger if nato disappears. I don't see the slightest hint of anything else.
as for the ukrainians, yes, they have shown that many of them are ready to die in large numbers without much protest, just like the russians. the average age of soldiers of 43 years, many young male refugees who do not want to fight and reports of forced mobilization suggest that there are also a large number of those who do not want to fight. also, that eastern part of ukraine was and is now even more majority pro-russian. any withdrawal of the russian army to its borders would mean the ethnic cleansing of many millions of russians. with a low birth rate and many refugees, I don't know what ukraine would fill those regions with.
idk, every possible solution looks bad to me, don't know what else to say.

I think people are massively over inflating the POW / rape issue. It is not normal for soldiers to be captured in modern warfare. In the second Gulf War, approx 21 American soldiers were taken prisoner in Iraq (out of 160,000 deployed) In the first Gulf War I believe it was even fewer although most people have heard of the most famous (Bravo Two Zero, the SAS soldiers captured including Andy McNab). Yes, those POWs were treated very badly, but I think people have some weird Hollywood idea about war and think it's mostly people being captured. It isn't.