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?

There's been talk recently of extending conscription to females in Finland (at the moment they can volunteer for conscription, but they aren't called up like males are) but I think biological differences make it more difficult, they are more expense to keep (conscript pay is higher for women than for men, because they have more needs like sanitary products) and keeping them in separate barracks makes spreading info more difficult (they've recently experimented with mixed sex barracks because of this)

[quote gogohm]@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Those rules have been superseded - in the U.K. women can apply for the marines but must meet the same standards as men.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 [/quote]
I hadn't realised - the rule seems to have been lifted in 2018. Found these articles, which are interesting -

'SAS: Women allowed to join for first time'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45983882.amp (though the first applicants seem to have gotten through the process last year)

www.cornwalllive.com/first-woman-royal-marine-trainee-2861834

It's an interesting discussion.

War is bloody awful but if we had to defend ourselves there's no reason why women couldn't be conscripted (aside from the continuation of society point). Modern warfare for many western nations is largely conducted by drone. You don't need physical strength to fly those from a base miles away from the target. Someone above mentioned women snipers - that's another job where strength doesn't come into it. And then there are all the support roles - engineers, logistics, medics, etc many of which don't need physical strength. The fact that the average woman is not as strong as the average man is only really relevant to certain frontline combat roles.

(The equipment is designed for men though - I shoot for a hobby and have had some cracking collar bone bruises from rifle butts which are simply too big to tuck fully into my shoulder.)

I feel as a feminist that we can never make a claim to equality if only males can be conscripted. It feeds the men's rights narrative as it is so blatantly unfair.

My feeling on this is that I don't want equality in a shit show made by and designed for men. This war is man made, as all wars are. Obviously, we have no way of knowing what the world would have been like had women been in charge. But I feel that women are very much the collateral damage in a patriarchal structure that includes the male propensity to fight for the sake of power, rather than survival.

Having said that, modern warfare being what it is, I have zero problem with women joining up, and would probably want to myself if I was younger. Technical warfare that is "detached" should not be the preserve of only men. However, women will statistically always lose in a hand to hand combat situation against a man. Plus, we have the extra vulnerability of being women when rape is a weapon of war.

I agree with conscription for women if there is conscription for men but:

Women get injured from using equipment designed for men, from trying to use the same stride length as men etc. If conscription was mandatory for women it should be mandatory to have the correct equipment for women.

The military shpuld do a damn site better (like most organisations) at promoting women, and I would prefer it if more of the governmental decision makers were women too, otherwise its just a load of posh men sending women and lower/middle class men to fight, equality goes both ways

The military should also do a better job than it does now in the uk at protecting its female staff from sexual assault by their own staff

Having said that Im a pacifist who doesnt believe in war and conscription at all, but I am also a pragmatist.

I also hate the narrative of men were conscripted in ww2 but women werent. Women were conscripted. And whilst they might not have been on the front lines (although even then some were) they certainly ended up taking on dangerous work like logging etc, which was actually more dangerous than some of the jobs the men who werent on the front line were doing. So its never that clear cut

It often seems to be forgotten that in the UK in World War II, women and men both were subject to conscription. It wasn't just the young who were conscripted. Women who were pregnant or had young children were exempted. Women with caring responsibilities for other categories ( e.g orphaned child of another family member or bedridden invalid) were NOT exempt. In answer to the questions, which seemed to be inspired by USA situation, in UK I would expect that if conscription were reintroduced it would apply in the same way as it did in the past. All between 18 and 60 ,no matter their biological sex or professed gender identity would be liable for conscription. The biological or legally adoptive mother of a young child who has legal parental responsibility should be exempt. That leaves you with same sex parents who both have legal parental responsibility for a baby/young child., In that case, I suggest the one least fitted for war service should be exempt. There's no reason identifying as transgender should lead to exemption.

797.This paragraph allows women and transsexual people to be excluded from service in the armed forces if this is a proportionate way to ensure the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

Why are transsexual people excluded?
Is it because some transsexuals are actually women and women are excluded?
Or because although some are male we are all meant to believe they are women so they have to be excluded along with the actual women?

Mammalian sexual and reproductive selection means men have evolved to have the role of protecting women and children. Since women are the sex that gets pregnant and bears children, men have the role to support that biological reality to ensure our species survives.

Men are bigger and stronger to enable them to fight and attack other men, secure resources for family and tribe, and maintain access to those resources. It is also why men tend to be more aggressive and competitive - although physical aggression is a last resort, there's still a lot of posturing, hierarchy, competitiveness and status seeking behaviour in men. There's nothing inherently 'toxic' about these expressions of masculinity - these traits have thrived in the males of almost every species precisely because it is what enables them to secure resources and fight off competitors - and that's what females generally look for in a mate.

Sadly, a sizeable number of men don't use their strengths and abilities to protect women and children - instead they abuse and hurt them. However, it doesn't change the fact that throughout human history, men tend to take on the role of protector and provider and this is most obvious in times of war.
The reality is that in cold, hard evolutionary terms women are a far more valuable resource than men because they are crucial to repopulation. You don't need as many men to impregnate women, hence men are, unfortunately, more expendable - it's why men all over the world tend to take on more physically demanding and dangerous jobs, or jobs that involve being away from home for very long periods, and it's also why it is men that are needed the most during times of war.

I think that nations that are foolish enough to send as many women as men for direct combat probably won't have the same levels of post-war recovery in terms of population growth as nations that tend to use a predominantly male military force.

We wouldn't require people with a handicap to go to war, so why are the all too real and meaningful handicaps of being a woman in war ignored in favour of some unobtainable and fanciful idea of equality?

Yes I think women should fight as well as men.
You can't compare modern times to even 50 years ago.
Women did not have reliable contraception, they had sex and got pregnant. I should hope that nobody expects pregnant women to fight.
You do not have to be bloody Spider-Man to fight in a war such as the one we are witnessing in Ukraine.
The circumstances are different, citizens are defending their honetowns, not marching 100 miles on foot.
I am not young but I absolutely would not hesitate for one moment if it came to the crunch in throwing petrol bombs at any one who was attacking me.I
I am not trained in using a gun but again if I was faced with the same situation as the victims in the Ukraine then yes I would use a gun.
The only thing I would hesitate to do would be stab someone repeatedly until I knew that I had killed them. However if faced with the choice of stab that fucker or he/she will kill your child then I think I would do it.
I think using the argument women can reproduce after the war so shouldn't fight is moot. Who the hell are women going to be rushing to breed with if the love of their life is dead? And seriously I doubt intelligent women are going to be wanting to get pregnant whilst homeless refugees. It will be a very long time before things get back to any kind of normality for the majority of Ukrainians. We are not in the same position as we were after WW2 when people had no choice regarding family planning. My mum has said herself that she was one of many post war babies and that she wasn't planned it was just how life was then.
As for trans people yes they should fight too unless they are parents to dependent children.

Yes I thought this too.

Women get off the hook.

Men have to be killed.

I don't think we can pick and choose when we are the same and when not. We either are or aren't. And we aren't.

(Speaking as a woman)

@XiXimXerJinping

We wouldn't require people with a handicap to go to war, so why are the all too real and meaningful handicaps of being a woman in war ignored in favour of some unobtainable and fanciful idea of equality?

They're not being ignored on this thread.

@Linguini

They still have different fitness tests for men and women though.

No they don't! Not in the UK anyway. Fitness tests are job/role specific. If you can pass the test you can do the job. Some fitness tests are so severe that only men pass. There is a rare female outlier with the strength and ability to pass.

Women can even join the Marines now. But it takes an exceptional female whereas males can reach that level much more easily (though still difficult!)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Tattersall

I think conscripted in terms of doing jobs they are suitable for, just as you would men. And with decent equipment designed for them.

But I have never thought sex differences dont exist or thought equality meant doing exactly what the men do. I cant physically fight a 12 year old boy so any situation where a fight is likely id be a liability as id be dead or captured..

I also considered that lots of jobs could be done by 40-55 year olds quite well and a lot of us would happily go over our sons and daughters.

I think using the argument women can reproduce after the war so shouldn't fight is moot.

Reliable contraceptives is a relatively recent development in human history, and in times of conflict and wars with little access to food, running water and medicines, getting hold of contraceptives is going to be very low on people's lists of priorities, including women's.

Accepting the reality of the differences between the sexes doesn't imply that 'women shouldn't fight'. It means the underlying reality shapes societal norms on a wider level and also shapes personal choices on an individual level. These norms can be good, bad or neutral.

Women have always supported men in all kinds of ways during wars. And while men are the first line of defense, women are the second. If most men are killed by the invading force, then women don't have a choice but to fight to protect their children.
With modern warfare and equipment, women can contribute and participate more easily, but at the end of the day, military and war will always be male-dominated areas.

There is no stigma against women fleeing war or choosing not to fight against an invading army. People understand on an instinctive level why this happens - the strength differences, the very real possibility of rape etc.
There is a stigma for men though. Most people will not look kindly upon a man who hides behind women and expects them to defend him. Men understand this and many accept this from an early age. No one likes to go to war with the strong likelihood of dying! But men are socially conditioned to stoically accept their role as protector of women and children in times of crisis - again this is based on the evolutionary reality between the sexes which shapes how society teaches and treats women and men. The poster above with her son strongly insisting it's his job to fight is a prime example of that responsibility that men accept for themselves.

@ErrolTheDragon

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

Absolutely. There's no point sending women into hand to hand combat against men, or you'd lose the war. Both sexes would have to be given appropriate roles, playing to their strengths.

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.

I don't have to imagine it. This is exactly what happened in WW2 in Britain - kids shipped off to the countryside without their mothers. Partly for their own safety from bombing raids, but also so that women could aid the war effort in cities and munitions factories.

My mum and her sister were two of those children shipped off to a farm in the country as their family lived in a shipyard city which was deemed likely to be bombed regularly. My mum coped 'OK' but said they had to get up very early to help with farm chores before school and she was always cold and tired. My aunt was very young (perhaps about 5 or 6?) and very very homesick. In the end my grandparents decided to bring her home to the city.

Incidently, my "if sex is irrelevant" in the title was entirely ironic!

Who said sexy was irrelevant? Equal doesn’t mean the same.

Sex was irrelevant! Really must proofread

I’m one of the few women I know who have done, for some years when young, a job requiring physical strength, stamina and technical/mechanical expertise that was overwhelmingly done by men. I was in demand for my work ethic and reliability, but compared to the men I was weak and slow - was never discriminated against for this but there was often a point where it was sensible for a bloke to take over.
As pp have said, in many countries conscription applies to both sexes but in front line fighting forces it’s wise for a number of reasons to limit the personnel to men.

A dangerous job, too.

Women were conscripted during World War 2. Not necessarily into the forces - the land army, essential occupations etc - but they were conscripted. Those in the army weren't front line soldiers but then not everyone in the army is. Lots of medics, admin staff, drivers etc are needed, not everyone is needed to fight.

For the first couple of years of World War 1, married men weren't conscripted. Presumably because they had families to support and couldn't do that if they were killed. Teachers and clergymen were also exempt from conscription as were those who failed the medical.

Actually, I can remember our History teacher telling us that one reason for Germany's defeat in WW2 was because they never mobilised their women. Only men were conscripted or expected to contribute to the war effort, the whole kinde, kuche, kirche continued to exist for women.