If sex is irrelevant, why are conscripts usually men and boys?

[CornflakeMum]

Looking for a genuine intellectual discussion about this. Historically it seems obvious that the reasons are
a) men/young men (boys) are bigger, stronger
b) women are smaller, less strong and more likely to be responsible for caring & looking after children/ elderly parents

BUT
In the world we now live in surely male conscription is sexist and raises all sorts of issues:

• should young women be conscripted too?
• should transwomen be conscripted?
• should transmen be accepted as conscripts?
• could a man identify as trans to avoid conscription?
• in same sex couples with children should one partner care and one be conscripted?

Surely one of the few good things about being a woman throughout most of human history is that we don't have to go to war?

What's more, we don't want to go to war. We're not physically equipped for it and we're not violent in our nature. Obviously there are exceptions, and if women want to fight, they should be allowed to.

I don't think conscription is a great idea but if brought back, I don't think women should be conscripted, no. We need women to hold everything together. For young men, maybe the experience of discipline, teamwork and a focus for aggression is not the worst thing.

If you're asking what a feminist version of conscription or military advice might look like, then I'm not sure it's possible. Would a truly feminist society need/ want conscripted armed forces??

In our current society, I suppose you could look at conscripting people without any caring responsibilities (either for children or for relatives etc) regardless of sex. Children and dependent relatives continue to exist even during war, and need someone to continue to care for them.

But you'd have to still take into account the physical differences between men and women, and consider how to manage the issues around periods/pregnancy for women in any active war. Equality doesn't mean treating women as if they were men.

Sex isn't irrelevant.

If we had conscription, then I'd say both sexes should be conscripted, but (as I assume/hope happens with male conscripts), people should be allocated to roles congruent with their abilities. E.g. dad - a small scientist - was put in Signals

... whoops, accidental post... during WWII. He was involved in various things including projects to control locusts. In this day and age, there are many roles where brain (including character traits) are more important than brawn. But for the roles which do need brawn, obviously a greater proportion of men would be suitable than women.

It's a very interesting discussion. Men are generally physically so much stronger than women. Yes, you will get some women who are stronger than some men but the general trend is overwhelmingly that men are stronger.

When my ds was 12 he challenged me to an arm wrestling competition . I was genuinely taken aback by how much stronger he was than me. Even using all my strength I didn't stand a chance at winning!

Women have always fought, just like we’ve always worked. Not only from a current uk centric perspective, there are hundreds and hundreds of roles within the military, but from all over world and throughout time.

Because there is no way the military could adequately protect women from sexual assault and sexual harassment. It's widespread in the military and has led to some extremely expensive lawsuits. Conscription would make it worse.

Add to that, you'd have to exclude a significant proportion of women from conscription: those with caring responsibilities, pregnant women, mothers of young children etc. Women make up the majority of the workforce in 'caring' professions too - carers, nurses, midwives, nursery staff, teachers, social workers etc. - which would make it harder to send them to war if you still want society to function properly.

Add to that, you'd have to exclude a significant proportion of women from conscription: those with caring responsibilities, pregnant women, mothers of young children etc. Women make up the majority of the workforce in 'caring' professions too - carers, nurses, midwives, nursery staff, teachers, social workers etc. - which would make it harder to send them to war if you still want society to function properly.

Yes, of course lots of women would be excluded, but that always was the case for men anyway, if they were in certain occupations.

It's a very interesting discussion. Men are generally physically so much stronger than women. Yes, you will get some women who are stronger than some men but the general trend is overwhelmingly that men are stronger.

When my ds was 12 he challenged me to an arm wrestling competition. I was genuinely taken aback by how much stronger he was than me. Even using all my strength I didn't stand a chance at winning!

But as long as there are some weak men and some strong women, it would be illogical to continue deciding who's fit for service based purely on sex. Presumably men in WW1 or WW2 didn't get exempted from conscription on the grounds of just not being strong?

I'm a 50yo 5'6" woman of medium build. I could easily beat my slight, skinny 13yo ds at arm wrestling. But I probably couldn't beat most of the boys in his year.

Who suggested that sex is irrelevant? Sex matters. However, arbitrary stereotypes - such as women like lipstick, pink, and flowers, or men like cars, maths, and technology - which are ascribed by idiots to the two sexes, are utterly irrelevant.

If there's going to be conscription I agree it should include both sexes but only on the basis that women have as much research and development into their kit and support needs as men have. We are not just smaller versions of a default male.

As an aside, I would have died during childbirth both times if I had been in anything other than a large city centre hospital and I, too, have life long effects. Even in the twenty-first century western world childbirth remains a risk to the mother's life. It has never been a threat to the father.

And to be clear, I haven't said whether or not I think conscription (if used) should apply to women as well as men. I think it's an interesting question and I'm listening to all views. But I do know that, when it comes to ensuring the survival of the human race, women more than pull their weight, day in day out, in war time and in peace, and I don't think we should be railroaded by some men, who don't have a clue about women's lives yelling, 'I thought you wanted equality'.

@Ylfa

Women have always fought, just like we’ve always worked. Not only from a current uk centric perspective, there are hundreds and hundreds of roles within the military, but from all over world and throughout time.

I don't think that's true. At least, of the histories I'm aware of, there are few female armies. Women didn't fight in wars through most of history.

@Fairislefandango

It's a very interesting discussion. Men are generally physically so much stronger than women. Yes, you will get some women who are stronger than some men but the general trend is overwhelmingly that men are stronger.

When my ds was 12 he challenged me to an arm wrestling competition. I was genuinely taken aback by how much stronger he was than me. Even using all my strength I didn't stand a chance at winning!

But as long as there are some weak men and some strong women, it would be illogical to continue deciding who's fit for service based purely on sex. Presumably men in WW1 or WW2 didn't get exempted from conscription on the grounds of just not being strong?

I'm a 50yo 5'6" woman of medium build. I could easily beat my slight, skinny 13yo ds at arm wrestling. But I probably couldn't beat most of the boys in his year.

Even now people who join the military are given work based on their abilities. Being a clerk or a cook isn't the same as being a marine or combat pilot.

There are certain jobs women have historically done a lot of. Nursing obviously and more latterly as doctors, clerks, air photo type stuff, code-breaking, computer science. Interestingly even in non-combat roles you tend to see greater numbers of women in certain trades which they seem to more often have an affinity for.

It's not just physical strength that sometimes makes women less inclined to the combat arms. It can also be the requirement to live very intimately in scenarios where there is no privacy and not a lot of access to things like sanitation or even medicines. It's great to say women can go on the pill to avoid periods, but that assumes maintaining access. Those things aren't necessarily insurmountable but each added layer of difficulty means that one more woman might not think it's for her.

I live in a country where military service for young men of 18 is mandatory.

Not if you're an only son though (which sets up some tricky sibling dynamics if, say, a couple have an eldest boy, then daughters, then a younger son - big brother is generally not delighted that little brother's arrival tore up his Get Out Of Jail Free card).

There are bored teenage boys aimlessly toting rifles all over the country. In theory, they'd be deployed in combat if necessary. Not sure how much use most of them would be!

Or, for that matter, that they'd make better front line troops than their sisters.

FWIW, if my ds were likely to be called up (we're expats, so he isn't) in time of war, I'd cheerfully do a Katniss & volunteer instead. I'm more expendable as an older person. Plus I'm a better shot, based on the occasional historical reenactment weekend & trips to fairgrounds....

I think young lads being the first to be called on may have made sense when they needed to handle an assegai or swing a morningstar. If it's a question of pointing a machine gun or driving a tank, then it probably makes more practical sense to round up the older generation with grown or no dc first. Obviously not those who are infirm, but 45-60 year olds first, perhaps. The younger generation can then do the re-building & re-populating later.

It's an interesting question.

I always found it strange in World War 2 that while the powers that be gallantly protected women ( yes, that was sarcastic) because they didn't think it right to put women at risk - they then brought them in in sizeable numbers to do the riskiest job of all - being secret agents. They were supposedly protected under the Geneva Convention i.e. to be treated humanly as other captives, but we all know how that went....

Also, they were allowed to ferry planes from factories to airfields - but not allowed to have the planes armed - so technically sitting ducks for any enemy aircraft with no way of defending themselves.

The Russians trained over 2000 women as snipers on the front line and they notched up hundreds of kills.

There are now several percent of female jet fighter pilots in the US, Israel etc. Women flew missions in Afghanistan for examples, plus of course there were the medics as well right in the line of fire.

I don't believe in conscription except in war time but you can be in the front line without always having hand to hand combat.

So yes, if you are going to have to conscript men, conscript women too. There are many women who want the chance to defend their country in war. I bet you would a fair few in Ukraine right now.

At least, of the histories I'm aware of, there are few female armies. Women didn't fight in wars through most of history.

Mao had one. Almost all resistance forces have/had women. And revolutionary forces/insurrections. Vikings. Māori women. The night witches. There are lots of examples of women fighting.

One might also argue that if the world was truly equal, with 50% of the leaders and elected representatives female, we wouldn't need conscription because people wouldn't fight fucking stupid ugly senseless wars.

I'm inclined to agree with Germaine Greer

www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/09/equality-is-a-profoundly-conservative-goal-for-women-germaine-greer-says

"The army is no place for humans, let alone women"

@Phobiaphobic
“I feel as a feminist that we can never make a claim to equality if only males can be conscripted”

Equality can’t always mean the same.
Just as in sports a man against a women is generally an unequal match, fighting one to one would be too. So conscription would need to depend on roles.

And what about testosterone? Are we to pretend it doesn’t help men summon aggression? Or would women conscripts dose on it?

Imagine all those women with children we are seeing leaving Ukraine. Now let’s imagine those children being shipped off somewhere en masse so their mothers can stay and fight.

Why is rape a weapon of war?

Many countries do have unisex conscription now. My friends met in the Israeli army.

Traditionally women didn't got to war, many of the countries still with conscription are not the most enlightened when it comes to sex equality.

My dd is is in the armed forces, 1/3 of her intake are female

@Waitwhat23

Those rules have been superseded - in the U.K. women can apply for the marines but must meet the same standards as men. All services have or are soon to have universal standards

Re: The idea that if women are equal to men they should be conscripts too. From Kathleen Stock’s sub stack which is currently posted on this board.

“But it’s madly hubristic to think we could aim to transcend the existence of feminine and masculine cultures altogether. Yet, instead of framing sex-based social norms of some kind as an inevitable part of our animal life, and even as sometimes helpful in their ability to coordinate human behaviour, a lot of radical feminists seem to think of social norms as threats to freedom and individual choice, whatever their content. “

Aside from the very obvious physical and hormonal issues that make women less useful on the front line, there is the issue of how they are likely to be treated if captured, how the men they are with are likely to react to this and how the opposing army is likely to use this as a weapon.

I had an interesting, but possibly appalling, conversation with my teenagers tonight.

It turns out that ds has always thought he'd have to go off & fight if that was how the chips fell. He'd really rather not - he's a lazy geek who ditched rugby because he didn't like the early mornings for training - but it seems that he's always assumed that yep, if war happens, off I go.

He's shocked that I think that I'd be more use than him & would be happy to be the family member to go. He agrees that I'd be more use/more expendable in most circumstances, & also pointed out that dd1 would be FAR better in a combat situation than him.

She's in enthusiastic agreement with this on the basis that her brother would have to get out of bed, & would most likely trip over his own socks doing so. She'd be ABSOLUTELY up for fighting to the death.

(Dd2 would be collaborating. She'd definitely join the resistance later if they looked cool & had good hats, apparently).

Ds's take on all this is: 'But I'd fight. I'm the bloke here. There's no way whatsoever that I'd hide behind you, or dd1.That would not happen. It's MY job to go off to war, however much I'd hate it. My grandfather fought. I'd bloody well fight.'

I'm really quite taken aback. I'm torn between thinking he's a sexist dipstick, & thinking he's really very brave - he definitely means every word. & he's not the bravado, macho type at all.

It's really not a conversation I thought I'd be having with any of them.