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?

Hitler's plan involved removing women from the workforce, hence he could claim that unemployment under his rule had been reduced. Well of course if 50% of the workforce are not counted in the figures, it will look as though you have tackled the issue. Women were also encouraged to prostitute themselves to soldiers.

Women have equal responsibility to defend their nation and be patriots as men. So yeah.

Most conscripts are male because sexism still exists. Next question.

@maya71

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.

Except for the Nazi military women that guarded the concentration camps and worked in the SS (not social services).

@ScrollingLeaves

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. “

I think Stock is right about this. Maleness and femalessness are among the most intimate and universal categories of human experience. They will always be reflected in things like art, archetypal frames, social structures, and so on. They will affect how we conceptualize male and female as categories.

The idea that we can completely escape these kinds of things is just utopianism, and like most utopianism will lead to concrete poor outcomes.

Is it because they're more likely to be bigger and stronger more aggressive and less likely to pregnant, breastfeeding or the primary carer for children or elderly?

Size, strength, doesn’t matter when you have automatic machine guns or are driving a tank or are flying a fighter jet. Women are just as good at pulling a trigger as men and bullets/shells/bombs kill men just as easily as women.

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,

Humans are not animals. No social norm is inevitable and many age actually very unhelpful and damaging.

Of course humans are animals! We are mammals.

What do you think we are, if not animals? We sure as hell aren't Gods.

@maya71

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.

No, Albert Speer had to mobilise women as it became total war. Although female domain was "the home" the Nazis compromised by saying that"Germany was their home". This enabled women to re-join the workforce and support the military.

@beastlyslumber

Of course humans are animals! We are mammals.

What do you think we are, if not animals? We sure as hell aren't Gods.

We are not animals. It’s quite simple really. There isn’t a binary of animal or gods. There are many levels of sentience and humans are definitely not animals who are ruled by instinct. Don’t degrade us.

No animal would hunt anything to extinction. We’re more like a virus.

We are not animals. It’s quite simple really. There isn’t a binary of animal or gods. There are many levels of sentience and humans are definitely not animals who are ruled by instinct. Don’t degrade us.

Of course we are animals rules by our instincts! Why are we so protective of our own children for instance.
We may like to think we are better than animals and we dress up our instinctive behaviour prettily to raise us above lower order animals but at the end of the day we are mammals and have the many of the same instincts as any other mammal.

We are mammals. That's just a fact.

@MuddyPawsWars

We are not animals. It’s quite simple really. There isn’t a binary of animal or gods. There are many levels of sentience and humans are definitely not animals who are ruled by instinct. Don’t degrade us.

Of course we are animals rules by our instincts! Why are we so protective of our own children for instance.
We may like to think we are better than animals and we dress up our instinctive behaviour prettily to raise us above lower order animals but at the end of the day we are mammals and have the many of the same instincts as any other mammal.

The fact child abuse exists and claims the lives of hundreds of innocent children proves we are not animals ruled by instincts to be “so protective of our own children”

So who is ruled by instinct? The humans that kill their children or the humans that do not? Or are different humans born with different instincts (warning this is biologically impossible in the animal kingdom).

We are not “better than animals” we are simply more sentient and with this added self-awareness and freedom of thought and action comes added responsibility towards animals, plants and the environment. If we were just like the animals, there’d be no such thing as civilisation or laws or art or music or science or technology or environmentalism and so on and so on.

Empress- we are animals! Of course we are! We are upright apes with opposable thumbs.We are no different biologically than our ancestors were a couple of thousand years ago. We have caveman brains, that’s why we love ice cream and shiny things.

@Sittinginthesand

Empress- we are animals! Of course we are! We are upright apes with opposable thumbs.We are no different biologically than our ancestors were a couple of thousand years ago. We have caveman brains, that’s why we love ice cream and shiny things.

We’ve been biologically the same for around 300,000 years, not two thousand. The science that says we are just animals is, however, around two thousand years old as you and others are merely repeating Socrates by saying humans are animals. Have a look at Charles Darwin if you want to get your knowledge a little more up to date.

Empress - eh? Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? I am not ‘repeating Socrates’ by saying that humans are animals, and it is irrelevant who or when else it’s been said - it’s just a fact! When did I say that we only became modern humans 2000 years ago? Charles Darwin quite an odd recommendation for ‘up to date’ reading.

I think this is a really interesting thread and brings up lots of ideas about gender and sex and fairness and feminism/equality and how that all works in the military and times of war so thanks to those above for their ideas.

It's totally off topic really but I also want to respond to this muddled idea: "There are many levels of sentience and humans are definitely not animals who are ruled by instinct."

It seems there are levels of sentience as in different degrees of complexity of thought and feeling in different animals though we are still learning about this. Just recently UK law changed to recognise crabs, octopus and lobsters as sentient beings but I don't think anyone would disagree that the human animal seems to have an edge on lobsters in a sentience hierarchy.

We are animals no matter how much it degrades you to think of it. It's a scientific fact and not an outdated one. We evolved from an ape and we share a common ancestor with chimps.

And we behave instinctually.

Infantry is a hard one given the kit you have to carry. Very few men qualify for elite infantry but I believe one woman in the UK has.

Women all over the world have proved themselves proficient in urban fighting, artillery, sharp shooting, flying attack, defence and transport planes and helicopters. Not been many sea battles to prove their worth since they were accepted in various countries navies and submarines. And of course they have more than proved their worth as doctors, surgeons and nurses on the field. And as spies, decoders and coders.

The vast majority in the UK have been volunteers. When it comes to conscription it's a different story. For both men and women. Health knocks a lot of them out - poor eyesight, asthma, flat feet, underlying health issues including obesity. Family responsibilities another (though Odette Churchill left her children behind during WW2 and wasn't the only one). Maintaining essential services including food and care - let's not forget the female munitions and steel workers, farmer workers and scientists in the UK WW1 and WW2. Some occupations are reserved to keep a country going if the war isn't on its soil.

There is no reason why women, transwomen and transmen shouldn't be conscripted if they are fit to fight.

However as one UK general said today, a volunteer is worth 20 conscripts. And more if they are defending their own country.

@EmpressCixi

Size, strength, doesn’t matter when you have automatic machine guns or are driving a tank or are flying a fighter jet. Women are just as good at pulling a trigger as men and bullets/shells/bombs kill men just as easily as women.

This is completely untrue. Size and specifically weight, and strength are absolutely factors when shooting, and also when carrying something like a 17lb machine gun and it's ammo while you are running around with all your other equipment. It doesn't matter how you slice it, if you are 150lbs you will be carrying a larger % of your body weight than if you are 200lbs. Working in a tank or with the artillery can also be heavy work.

It's not impossible to do but anyone who says strength isn't a factor has never done it.

Mangyinseam,

I'm not anything like a military person but ISTM that eurochick and others do have a point. If you compare how war is waged since the last time the UK had conscription, it's completely changed. WW2 was won by massive infantry armies in long marching columns supported by tanks and heavy artillery. The Germans lost, how many, maybe a million at the Battle of Stalingrad? Aeroplanes weren't as developed explosives weren't as, well, as explosive, and missiles were only a thing at the end of the war.

What would modem military equipment do to a column of poor bloody infantry with their single-shot Lee-Enfield rifles today?

I think the point is that there will always be roles that require extra strength / fitness, meaning men would generally do them, e.g front line infantry, however a modern army would need far fewer of them and more people in other combat roles that women could do as well as men.

I used to be in the cadets and I was a very good shot with a rifle a lot better than most of the boys Probably hand to hand I'd be crap I think as females we rubbish ourselves when I would be a better shot than a lot of the male conscripts.
I do have medical training so would be better used treating people, I wouldn't like being conscripted but fair being fair I am probably valuable to a war effort.

Size, strength, doesn’t matter when you have automatic machine guns or are driving a tank or are flying a fighter jet. Women are just as good at pulling a trigger as men and bullets/shells/bombs kill men just as easily as women

Absolutely it does.
I would suggest you read Invisible Women about how the world is built around the size strength and shape of a male body and male needs. Its really eye opening.
www.waterstones.com/book/invisible-women/caroline-criado-perez/9781784706289

@Ylfa

No animal would hunt anything to extinction. We’re more like a virus.

I don't think even viruses do that.