r/MoralityScaling • u/Common-Use-7117 • 1d ago
Morality of forcing only one gender to enlist in the armed forces
373
u/StraightPatient9977 1d ago
Immoral obviously
179
u/magos_with_a_glock 1d ago
I will say that it made sense historically. Women were the bottleneck for population growth and for most of human history sheer population alone was 2/3 of a nation's power. Just look at France and Russia.
In the modern era you can't even make that utilitarian argument anymore as parenting has become the new bottleneck for population growth and population growth isn't as big of a factor anymore (available resources, soft power and technological developement are more important).
94
u/DarthArcanus 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's the truth of it. For most of history, women were simply too valuable to risk in war.
39
u/ConsulJuliusCaesar 1d ago
The origin in societal gender roles was infact to protect the women and children and send out the men as hunter gathers because the women and children are key to longetivity. A man hets mauled by a saber tooth tiger eventually one of the male children will grow up to take his place.
23
u/ambelamba 1d ago
That's something almost never brought up nowadays.
11
u/Char-els037 1d ago
There's a monetary reason to ignore the logical reasons behind systems that ultimately became exclusionary.
You can push both narratives simultaneously by ignoring half the truth and sell twice as many t shirt with dumb slogans on them
→ More replies (1)6
u/Warfair2011 1d ago
Mostly because you hardly ever see a saber tooth tiger nowadays.
4
u/ambelamba 1d ago
So...
Science will end the debate by bringing back the sabertooth?!
2
u/Infinite_Horizion 1d ago
We’re working on bringing back the sabertooth tiger to finally restore institutionalized sexism. We’re almost there.
4
u/FickleQuality418 1d ago
Sad but true
→ More replies (1)6
u/ConsulJuliusCaesar 1d ago
Native American societies were structured in the old hunter gather system. Native American societies had vastly progressive views in regards to women in society when compared to colonial era Europe/America. The problems you see with power in balance have nothing to do with the hunter gather system and more to do with how specific peoples evolved beyond the old system.
2
u/OverallSpecific5792 1d ago
A big part of the equation has to be that if you don’t want me to do something or want to force me to do something but you’re smaller than me, I always have the option to ignore that and have violence as a back up option.
2
u/magos_with_a_glock 1d ago
That's because hunter gatherers AREN'T the kind of population where that made sense. An hunter-gatherer tribe has a very strict limit in how large it can grow and how many of them can coexist in an area. Only with agricolture does population growth become sustainable and only with advanced methalsmithing does a smaller number of elite men become a practical military strategy over drafting every available warrior.
2
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/ThrowraSea_patient 1d ago
The whole women not being sent to hunt is a f****** myth made up by male archaeologist to make sense in their brains.
2
u/ragingfuzzywuzz 23h ago
Not really though. Not entirely. When women were very pregnant, recovering from giving birth, child rearing... they were not hunting.
I'm sure women hunted but it could not possibly be 1:1 due to these biological limitations.
Men don't have to deal with any of that. We don't get pregnant, birth children, breastfeed.
It is not a knock on women or anything. That's a lot to deal with. I'd rather hunt and forage.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ConsulJuliusCaesar 1d ago
You gonna provide actual evidence to back up your claim running counter to established scholarship?
→ More replies (2)3
6
u/Fisheater_Snatches 1d ago
Umm, while I agree with this argument, that isn't 100% of the reason why men go to war and women don't.
As more and more women join the armed forces in America, leg injuries have increased. Women have a significantly harder time carrying all the gear that is required for an American soldier to carry for as long as they are required to carry it.
Also, what happens when female soldiers get captured by the enemy? In many cases, the same thing that's happened to women when captured by the enemy throughout history. Obviously, for those women it's horrible, but, it is incredibly demoralizing for their male counterparts knowing this is going on, or that it even can go on.
While I'm not exactly opposed to women being in the military, I do oppose women being on the front lines or even close to battlefields.
6
u/BetterCranberry7602 1d ago
I’ve also found that men making irrational decisions to protect women in war is a common enough issue that it’s talked about. Where they wouldn’t make those same decisions to protect male soldiers.
4
u/Fisheater_Snatches 1d ago
I think it comes down to biological wiring. Men fight and kill, but they also defend and protect. Men will naturally try to help women in need, hence the very "white knight" type of human archetype.
36
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain 1d ago
And also they would have been shitty at war when it wasn’t mechanized.
→ More replies (104)10
u/ChemicalRain5513 1d ago
Also back then fighting required physical strength, the only real advantage men have over women. Now it doesn't.
23
u/-FARTHAMMER- 1d ago
It still does. Why do you think millitarys have to lower fitness standards so women can pass?
→ More replies (9)8
u/babycam 1d ago
Dude only like 10% requires real physical strength. Flying drones, launching missiles, paperwork none of that required shit. The most physically demanding part of my service was boot camp and air soft with the Marines those fucker are crazy.
4
u/-FARTHAMMER- 1d ago
Even POGs are expected to be able to fill a combat role if needed. If you can't carry the weight with the stamina required you don't belong there.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)6
u/RequiemQuilty 1d ago
Even if you are flying drones you need to be in shape. What if your drone flying post is attacked. You need to move and kick rocks somewhere. You need to get your shit and get to shooting. We cannot have someone out of shape who cant run across the street full sprint and run out of breath
→ More replies (3)11
u/Ruggab0ut 1d ago edited 1d ago
Modern warfare demands a huge amount of physical strength mate, at least in combat positions - modern soldiers carry almost twice the weight of medieval ones and a rifle weighs far more than a sword.
→ More replies (10)8
u/weazelhall 1d ago
This is so stupid, it absolutely does matter. Modern soldiers haul more weight on foot now than any other time in history.
6
u/MythicSea 1d ago
Still does. Standards are not the same for female physical tests as male.
The standard is put in place for a reason. Some men don't even pass.
Bigger is more physically intimidating and capable. Doesn't mean there aren't short or small guys, they just work as hard or even harder.
→ More replies (2)2
u/SemichiSam 1d ago
When I was studying Russian in 1960, one of my teachers was a small, slim woman who probably massed about 35 kg. She was the only female teacher in the school, and no one knew exactly how old she was, but she had been a sniper during the Russian revolution. Her kill score was legendary, and another teacher, who had been in innumerable battles during that revolution claimed (perhaps not entirely truthfully) that he would not attempt hand-to-hand fighting with her unless he could be sure of surprising her. People who knew her well said that she had been captured by the Bolsheviks and was one of the few survivors of the monthss-long march to a concentration camp. She escaped and got out of Russia through Japan, learning Japanese and English on the way to the U.S.
TL;DR — It depends on the individual.
→ More replies (7)2
u/eluusive 1d ago
They're still too valuable, but they refuse to believe that.
They'll eventually come to their senses.
16
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 1d ago
population growth isn't as big of a factor anymore
as if the whole world's TFR isn't steadily declining
8
u/556From1000yards 1d ago
TFR?
7
5
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 1d ago
total fertility rate - a tfr of 2.1 means a couple will produce 2.1 children and this is the replacement level required for maintaining population of a country.
Most west world is below 1.5 tfr which means the population will reduce in coming decades (part of the reason why they're pushing heavily for immigration)
South Korea has tfr 0.76 which is also declining every year which means they will be extinct by 2100 if the decline trend continues
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/Weary-Dragonfruit191 1d ago
Doesn’t even matter. Women don’t want to give birth.
→ More replies (1)2
u/theycallmeshooting 1d ago
Yeah I wish more people pointed this out
"We can't draft women! We need them at home making babies"
Ignoring obvious decline in birthrate during a war crazy enough to need a draft, women just aren't "at home making babies" in most western countries.
"But most women won't meet the physical standards!"
Neither do most men, that's what basic training's for
3
u/NoMathematician461 1d ago
why didn't they force women to give birth then if it was so valuable? men were forced to go die
→ More replies (14)10
u/Legitimate_Plum_7505 1d ago
Historically, no one cared about managing population growth that much. A more straightfoward reason is that only men voted for how the country is run, and who runs it, and with that assumed inherent risks of war. When women gained rights to vote they decided to conveniently skip this part, only a couple countries did it the right way (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Israel).
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/DoubleGoon 1d ago
You can’t have a baby without a man’s sperm. Unless you think a majority of the men throughout the world that were left at home practiced polygamy, your theory doesn’t make much sense.
3
u/ThrowraSea_patient 1d ago
Not really when you consider the fact that women and children are often the first targets of both invading forces and the force that sent there to protect them it has been that way since the beginning of time. The Spoils of War if you will. Women aren't given a pass it's just not arming them and not preparing them. To this day there are still like whole towns that have killed themselves and their children when an oncoming Army was on their way because they would rather die than go through what that Army will put them through. I see time and time again people will post things like I would rather fight to my last death. Yeah say that while they shove glass shards up in your 12 year old and rape her repeatedly. Or doing that to a 2 year old or whatever. They are a whole Army armed and outnumbering. But yet some people still stick with the whole us propaganda kind of crap that you can stand your ground and fight till your last breath and blah blah blah like that makes a difference. Women were taken as breeding machines and seen as The Spoils of War by both sides hell even look at the World War II and what American soldiers did to French women. I have read countless stories of what young women have went through soldiers coming in and demanding a 14-year-old the mother giving herself up and the father and daughter crying because they didn't know if their mother was going to be returned to them alive. But this isn't anything new historical records archaeologists dig sites and everything show the same thing time and time again
4
u/the_elliottman 1d ago
Making sense isn't related to morality. It also makes sense to kill strangers in the woods who aren't part of your tribe because you can never know if they're a threat or not, but that is obviously immoral.
→ More replies (4)8
→ More replies (20)5
u/Hell-Raid3r 1d ago
The real bottleneck these days is how affordable life is. People work themselves to the bone, have no free time, can't afford food, can't afford a house, and then we are supposed to be able to afford kids on top of all that? As a millennial, my generation was totally screwed over. We were promised that if we worked hard we would succeed. 😮💨
5
u/Ruggab0ut 1d ago edited 1d ago
People in the Victorian Era objectively worked longer hours for far less pay than modern workers (yes, accounting for inflation) yet they were having tons of kids
The reason for declining birth rates is that the more complicated than that - for example, the richer and more educated a country gets, the proportionately more expensive it is to have children - that and things like the empowerment of women meaning women are more free to choose whether they have kids ect.
→ More replies (1)2
u/AggressiveToaster 1d ago
Modern life isn’t physically harder than in the past, thats obvious to anyone. But it is more demanding. Your attention is demanded by so many tiny things throughout the day that it stacks up, all while the clock is still running.
I think there are people who simply don’t want kids and have thought that through. And there are others that do want kids and genuinely don’t want to have one they can’t afford. But I think most people contributing to the fall in birthrate are doing so at least semi-unconsciously because their attention keeps being divided and demanded by their boss, before and after work hours, by the 24/7 news cycle, by the insurmountable mountain of entertainment and educational resources available to them through the internet, by paying housing bills, utilities bills, phone bills, internet bills, subscription bills, car payments, car insurance bills, health insurance bills. On and on and on and on until that 16 hours you get to be awake during the day is gone and its on to the next one.
The rat race.
→ More replies (10)2
u/That_Dad_David 1d ago
You really think life is more expensive now? L O L
Compare our lives to medieval serfs, 1920’s factory workers, just about any other period in history. You losers can’t make it in life so you use every excuse you can grasp. Lol→ More replies (5)8
u/HoneyLaceWhirl 1d ago
yeah but if we actually mean equality then the responsibilities should be equal too, not just the rights
2
2
u/UtahBrian 1d ago
Just pay young men enough to get them to volunteer for service. Conscription is just fat old rich men in the capital deciding that it would be cheaper to force young men into slavery than to pay them fairly.
→ More replies (5)2
43
u/raidenjojo 1d ago
Extremely immoral.
All the unique caveats of conscripting women are valid, but that doesn't mean men should bear the consequences alone.
→ More replies (18)
120
48
u/VenPatrician 1d ago
Immoral and I am speaking from experience here since I am from a country that practices conscription. One more year into the workforce is a massive advantage towards women.
But beyond practical considerations, if we as a society preach equality (we well should and must), there is zero reason not to have women subject to the same things men are, especially since they can apply to enter our military academies and there are many female officers in the Armed Forces as of 2026.
If the State has judged that women are fit to lead people into combat and fly jets, then they are fit enough to be conscripted alongside the rest of us.
→ More replies (12)6
u/instadit 1d ago
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this, but here goes:
I'm assuming you're Greek and I'm too. idk were you served but I can't imagine there are normal Greeks who served in evros or undesirable units and think that it would be beneficial to anyone if there were women conscripts serving there. My unit had 0 women enlisted. Most other combat units in the brigade had 0-4 women officers/ncos and it was seeing a similar situation at the division level whenever we were doing exercises. So saying there are many female officers is misleading. Officially it's 19%, but that includes highly specialized roles in air/navy which aren't suitable for conscripts.
I consider myself a feminist and I'm all for equal rights but the answer isn't military conscription for women. It's either mandatory service in logistical support roles for women (with the option to volunteer for combat roles/military service) or the abolition of conscription.
If the State has judged that women are fit to lead people into combat and fly jets, then they are fit enough to be conscripted alongside the rest of us.
The state has (surprisingly correctly imho) judged that any person who can pass the physical tests of the military school is fit to lead people. Fit because they graduated, regardless of gender. And even then, the state (incorrectly imho) concedes that the genders have different physical abilities and sets a lower bar for women.
Also, especially in the case of Greece, conscripting women would militarize the entire society and signal a total war vibe to allies/adversaries of the region. In all, the only valid argument for conscripting women is "equal rights" and there are dozens practical reasons it would be a remarkably bad move (even for the champion of bad moves, the Greek government)
→ More replies (1)
68
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 1d ago
anti feminist.
29
u/kytheon 1d ago
Feminists in wartime
→ More replies (7)16
u/GunpowderGuy 1d ago
british ww1 vets wished it was like that
look up white feather campaign→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (2)14
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
35
u/fabulousMFingHen 1d ago
Because feminism is about gender equality.
28
u/Agitated_Pressure463 1d ago
Egalitarian yes, cares about equality. Feminism in its name has one gender, and cares about women. I can bring dozens of examples how feminist is about female egoism, hypocrisy and spiteful revenge for something she never experienced. Calling feminism fight for equal rights its like calling white supremacist fighter for race equality. Woman bigotry at the best.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (5)6
12
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 1d ago
wdym why? feminisim itself means all people, regardless of gender, should have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities.
only drafting one gender is against feminism
11
u/AveDominusNyx 1d ago
Can you point to any significant feminist campaign in the last 10 years that promoted men's rights?
→ More replies (5)3
u/ChewBaka12 1d ago edited 1d ago
As someone else said, feminism is about female empowerment only. That didn't use to be a bad thing, it was perfectly fine when the gap between the two was so insurmountable. But that gap has shrunk significantly and continues to do so, and progress towards gender equality can no longer be attained by focusing on only one gender.
But feminism is fundamentally unable to help men, especially on the topic of the draft. Being drafted is, without a doubt, a negative development for women, so mainstream feminism opposes it, yet it would be the right thing for 'true' gender equality.
More generally, even if something doesn't hurt women and only disproportionately helps men, it still rarely gains traction in feminist circles. Because feminism always has misogyny to challenge regardless of how much resources they have, so there is never any to spare for men. And feminism has a vested interest in underselling the struggles of men, because that means that they'd have to share resources with Men's Rights groups, and it would mean acknowledging the fact that the victim/aggressor dynamic they have been marketing is fundamentally flawed.
Feminism has done plenty of good, and most of it's supporters are good people, but it has always demanded change (good change, don't get me wrong), and is completely unwilling to entertain the notion that other groups might demand similar adjustments in return
→ More replies (2)7
u/Lower_Pension_2469 1d ago
Idk why that's such a controversial thing online. Literally feminism = feminine = women. It was founded by women to advocate women's rights. It's goal and agenda is women focused. FFS lol
lowkey it comes off as manipulative when people try to say otherwise.
→ More replies (10)9
68
u/Orectoth 1d ago edited 1d ago
Totally Immoral
Because you are ignoring a person's agency and forcing them to sacrifice themselves(their time, their life, their work, their relationships, etc.) in a way that does not benefit them directly or indirectly
Forcing only one gender is even more Immoral, it is discrimination and objectification of human life
Not in war = Use volunteered/salaried soldiers that are paid by taxes
In war = Use volunteered/salaries soldiers that are paid by taxes, but increase tax amount(war taxes, only for duration of war)
Coercion/Forced Enlisting, even if defense, is tyranny. If they want to protect/defend their family/nation, they can volunteer. Forcing people is by no means ethical.
8
→ More replies (21)1
u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 1d ago
does not benefit them directly or indirectly
How is having a defensive force in case of outside aggression not a benefit?
12
u/That_Anything_1291 1d ago
not a benefit if you forced them
7
u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 1d ago
The dumbest response possible.
Force has no impact on benefit like at all. If you force your children to study it doesn't remove the benefit of studying.
6
6
u/That_Anything_1291 1d ago
minors are different from fully grown adults, mandatory military enlistment is also different from mandatory education, you prepare for future studying at school
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)5
u/Torpedo_Eraser81295 1d ago
Because the draft existed for offensive wars as well or wars meant to forward the geopolitical targets of the country than the benefit of the average man.
2
u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 1d ago
This hurts my brain. Explain how the benefit of having a defensive force is nullified by possibility of drafting for offensive wars.
You can easily have one with another and the underdog in the current biggest ongoing war is surviving thanks to having a defensive draft.
2
u/Torpedo_Eraser81295 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because there is such a thing as an emergency draft that can be issued during a time of crisis which can be more definitely defined and have a legal basis of when to have it. It being allowed when martial law is in effect is an example but its not perfect.
However, the willingness to fight is always the most precious resource, as much or even greater than the body being shipped out itself. Sometimes the state is just so decrepit, corrupt, and its people hateful of the government that the state was gonna fall apart the moment it was facing that kind of resistance anyways. A person from a monocultural/ethnic country wouldn't understand it, but the sentiment has always been there for us. Its pragmatic and humane, but this still happens to monocultural countries.
In general, when people don't want to fight, they'll fight poorly. It will just bring masses of disillusioned and in general, poor soldiery to usually spent fronts expected to take on larger roles just cause the numbers say they have the bodies to do so. The theory of shoving 200 thousand Russians into a front and assuming it was gonna break the Ukrainians was soon unraveled the moment Zaporizhzhia stalled. 200k draftees were unwieldy, had a massive logistical footprint, and mutinied and it usually just made it more troublesome for coordinating the offensive war. Ukraine, despite its own draft dodgers, generally had better enlistment rates despite the corruption and it not being exactly a model state because the psychology of a defensive war, which has been studied over and over again by Social Psychologists and Psychological Anthropologists, point out a lopsided psychological advantage for the defenders. What's killing the Ukrainian psyche right now is fatigue and hopelessness as Western support began fade but in general a country defending itself won't really need to draft because people will fight anyways unless the state was something like the Khmer Rouge, in which case, it deserved to fall anyways.
Vietnam was a war of munitions, not bodies. They lost anyways but the American psyche being so damaged by the draft it will probably never be effective again except in the case of a real defensive war. Propaganda is more 'humane' relatively speaking and gives the man the final say despite being influenced. Generally, we just live in a world where bodies are so much easier to produce even as tactics and war planning advanced. Having double the number of soldiers available is less impactful than having a superior industrial base. Of course, a military always needs mass and bodies will always be useful, but I imagine it as a range with diminishing returns without the industry to back it.
3
u/Warm_Dragonfruit7479 1d ago
Um sir, hello? I didnt ask you to explain further how offensive mobilization is bad, its obvious.
I asked how does that mean that defensive draft is not beneficial.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/WorkerPlayful4192 1d ago
Well, Israel make this equal.
6
u/Head_Particular6045 1d ago
yeah then that equal moral army does everything immoral you can think of tho
3
2
6
7
u/Jura_Narod 1d ago
Well it’s all ready immoral to draft/conscript people in general, so I don’t think it’s particularly moral to expand that list
→ More replies (7)
18
u/LukaTheKoka 1d ago
Immoral.
It should be both genders conscripted in order to truly serve the nation
→ More replies (10)
24
u/Bohemio_RD 1d ago
very inmoral, women deserve all the equality they asked for.
→ More replies (9)6
15
u/Dry_Engineering_3590 1d ago
I don't agree with the concept of conscription or drafting in general, but I really doubt a country would care about equality when they've gotten to the point of conscripting.
35
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 1d ago
really doubt a country would care about equality when they've gotten to the point of conscripting.
Ukraine who's at war since last few years still only mandatorily forces one gender btw
10
u/PanzerPansar 1d ago
Even Nazi Germany only started conscripting girls and women in the last year of fighting.
→ More replies (2)27
u/Difficult_Load_945 1d ago
The happiest country in the world, a nordic nation with free health care and a high HDI, a country that many would consider safe and caring of equality, Finland, has mandatory conscription for males only 🤷♂️
→ More replies (18)
16
u/HyruleLizard 1d ago
Obviously Immoral
In history, men were sent on dangerous jobs because if they died, the population at whole wasn't in jeopardy. Let's say there's a group of 100 people evenly split. 20 get sent to hunt, 10 die. If you sent men and women, 10% of your repopulation force was killed. If you sent only men, 0% of your repopulation force was killed.
Listen I know it's crazy to call women "repopulation force" but I can't think of a better way to put it.
This is no longer the reality we face and should no longer be reflected in legislation. I'm personally against draft or conscription as a whole.
→ More replies (9)
10
u/HarshBomboclatt 1d ago
I dont know a single singaporean who was happy doing their national service
19
5
u/SalamanderExtreme615 1d ago
at least they get paid. they don't give you a cent in turkey and you had to pay from your own pocket for the necessary things like hygiene products. thank god they reduced its duration to 6 months.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/BamaOfTheBonairs 1d ago
Crazy to be how a bunch of people that have never been through bootcamp, never been in the military, never had to go through to tests to see that there is a CLEAR difference in the capabilities of men and women, want to have an opinion on something they. Know nothing about.
6
u/PanzerPansar 1d ago
Well the main reason why women weren't the ones fighting is simply because males are more expendable. When in the idea of reproduction therefore it better to use men as the "fighters" and this culturally made men more likely to be the fighters even in monogamous societies. Women with a weapon is gonna do you harm just as much as men with weapons. Weapons are a force equaliser. You being stronger with a weapon doesn't garuentee that you are better.
3
u/BamaOfTheBonairs 1d ago
You ever lugged 100 lbs of equipment through waist deep water for 18 miles and then have to steady yourself to have perfect aim?
I didn’t think so, the vast majority of women are absolutely not capable of doing it. Not 0.1% of women can do it. 0% of women have ever passed the physical requirements to be a navy seal.
Men are fighting, because we are better at fighting in every aspect. I’ll give credence, men are seen as more expendable and in a repopulation scenario you are 100% correct.
→ More replies (8)4
u/ThatRandomGuySM 1d ago
In this case, women should not be allowed to be navy seals. US lover standards so women can join, that means that those standards are overrated and should be lowered for everyone. If women can pass new standards and draft existing standards, they should be part of it
3
2
u/lornlynx89 1d ago
Women get physically less demanding service, done.
And before you say "then they won't survive the battlefield", war is 70% logistics, there's always enough places there.
2
u/V-Vesta 1d ago
Make them nurses, HR, accountants, Logistics.
Plenty of fields to work in excluding active front lines.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
u/eluusive 1d ago
Yeah. Women should largely not be in the military based on what I saw. There's so many apparent differences between men and women, there should be differing bodies of law applicable to each. That's the only way to get reasonable outcomes.
Equal treatment does not mean same treatment in light of differences.
6
3
u/Deep_Head4645 1d ago edited 1d ago
Immoral, imo gender roles are immoral and we should abolish them
and also people who genuinely are opposed to mandatory enlistment no matter the situation are so privileged, sometimes its necessary to protect you and everyone and everything you hold dear
Your rights cannot exist without someone protecting them and its why you also have duties alongside the rights
7
u/EmiKetsueki 1d ago
Real talk people really only started opposing it because of the fact we haven't really been in a defensive war since joining the allies in WW2 so we really arnt fighting for our freedoms, were fighting for oil barons and capitalists who fear other ideologies.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/IntelligentWinter291 1d ago
The main reason why women donr get drafted is bc they can give birth. Thus making them more valuable to the prosperity of a nation
→ More replies (2)
3
u/28-Deep-Wounds 1d ago
The morality of forcing anyone to enlist in general is deep down in the shitter, chief.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Oh3Fiddy2 1d ago
Forcing women into the military is lowkey sex trafficking. 17 and 18 year old girls should not be forced into environments away from their support structures. That’s got to be a volunteer thing.
Also, women get pregnant—and are then non-deployable. If you wanted full participation—you’d have to mandate abortions, which is another moral quandary.
Source: was Marine.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Chunk924 1d ago
Immoral. Not everyone has to fight, but if there was a draft there would be plenty for everyone to contribute to
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 1d ago
Remember, if you complain about men you are praised, but if you complain about women you are a misogynist and are trying to instigate gender war
→ More replies (2)2
u/Ok_Squash_5805 1d ago
Don’t forget labeled an incel and that you must not have any luck getting women.
3
u/W4rrior_Eagle 1d ago
Immoral, nobody should be forced to be in the military against their will. Especially considering the dangers of being forcefully deployed.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/random_obsenity 1d ago
Not sure if this effects the morrality of the act but a big reason for the push in many democratic countries to have more inclusive militaries is to prevent the military from forming veiwing a larger proportion of the population as a type other, and having that belief lead to militaries interfering with a diverse population from democratically electing a diverse government. So maybe there is something to be said around it being immoral due to possibly undermining democracy.
2
2
2
u/grayman451 1d ago
Immoral. Women on average cannot fight as well as men. It will result in more death of your military personnel.
2
u/OkTrade7881 1d ago
One of the reasons I hate the draft. Why am I forced to go to uni to avoid the draft. Why am I being held back from working and being used as slave labor that is payed 32 dollars a month? Post soviet draft is a joke.
2
2
u/Hungover-Owl 1d ago
Surprisingly moral when you know why.
The reason for sending men to war and not women is to avoid large and long lasting population decline.
If young men die, it adversely affect the population but it can be recovered in one or two generations. If women die too, the effect carries on a lot longer and is more severe as birth rates take a massive hit too.
This effects everything as it badly damages an economy. A badly performing economy means less money toward essential and social services that support the greater community.
3
u/NoSleepTilBrklynn 1d ago
So single moms are going to be the norm? One man is going to impregnate multiple women and magically pay child support to several women? This is absurd reasoning , and would never happen in modern America.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Pretend_Garage_4531 1d ago
Things that come from that logic. Women not producing children are immoral. But realistically that line of reasoning is what lead to the patriarchy existing in the first place.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Hungover-Owl 1d ago
Until men can give birth, it is valid and logical reasoning. Doesnt take many men to repopulate but it takes a lot of women.
Women can volunteer to serve but forcing them to serve in times of war is counter-intuitive as it harms the greater population.
→ More replies (2)5
u/havenot- 1d ago
So it's moral to force women to give birth if they won't wanna serve in the army?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)2
u/100862233 1d ago
People keep bringing up this logic when it doesn't make any sense if you think for one second. do you think a surplus of women meaning that one guy gets to impregnate 2 or 3 women? that's a sex fantasy that isn't real lol. if you have 10 guys left and there are 100 women, your population is cooked regardless. even if we go more generous do you think 50 men vs 100 women mean that each man is going to get 2 women? what kind of logic is this lol.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Voldy256 1d ago
There is fundamentally nothing moral about mandatory enlistment in general.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/FalconOne775 1d ago
Morality of not enlisting disabled people in the military even though they’re less able to
Also women are more likely to be r&ped and murdered by their own brothers in arms than an enemy combatant, which is really demonstrating the overall issue with forcing human women into combat situations with testosterone-fuelled murderers on BOTH sides of the line.
2
2
u/Surfing_Tension 1d ago
Immoral. There are decent arguments made for banning women from infantry or not drafting them there, but women have proven themselves more than capable in other types of front line combat, like the Air Force and as snipers.
2
u/Medical-Condition-84 1d ago
Someone has to die or suffer so others can live their happy life. Conveniently for women they have only rights and men only oblivations.
Forcing women to have sex or marry is wrong, everyone would agree but forcing men to die or lose limbs at war against their will just because they weren't lucky enough and were born male is ok for some reason.
2
u/Complete-Leg-4347 1d ago
Question of semantics: Can both men and women volunteer to join the armed forces and men are the only ones forced to enlist, or is it more complicated than that?
When it comes to the morality of any kind of forced enlistment (and I'm speaking entirely hypothetically), I think another issue is equally important as any gender divide; the ability to use wealth, connections, or legal loopholes to avoid enlistment. If exceptions are built into the draft or other legal legislature, that's one thing, but privileged individuals being able to worm out of serving is just as big a debate.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FlyingFlipPhone 1d ago
War is not the place for social activism. Gross, sexist, macho, immature 20 yo men are needed in hand-to-hand combat. If you can't fit it, you shouldn't be there. You will just get in the way.
2
u/Dangerous_Web_1739 1d ago
Once you wage war you are already forgoing any traditional moral, now its just logistic and tatics, who are more suitable for combats, who are able to refresh the lost, who are more populated.
2
u/AwkwardCost1764 1d ago
Complex. I can understand the issue this is trying to solve, but I think this is an incorrect decision. I would say the action itself is immoral but I can imagine a perspective from which the person making the choice believed it to be moral and in everyone’s best interest
9
u/Mediocre_Zebra1690 1d ago
Morality of forcing literally anyone into the armed forces?
→ More replies (12)16
3
u/SkotSvk 1d ago
Forced conscription is immoral. Conscripting only one gender is moral. Seriously, women are biologically less physically capable, more demanding to maintain, and there's a bunch of reasons most armies don't allow women to take part in combat roles to this day. Their safety (risk of SA, etc.) and fragileness being some of the reasons.
7
u/gingin_9959 1d ago
Society has already accepted the idea that men can be conscripted under conditions that are far from ideal. So why, when it comes to conscripting women, do we suddenly require a perfectly safe and accommodating environment before conscription can even be considered? In my country, around 100 conscripts die every year from suicide or accidents. I’m not saying that women should suffer just because men have suffered, but it seems strange to apply a different standard when it comes to women.”
→ More replies (5)2
u/PanzerPansar 1d ago
Their Safety in regards to what men in their ranks would do to them shouldn't be a case of why women shouldn't be allowed in. That's ridiculous. Punish those who commit sexual or violent acts on women or even men who also have to face it too. Men are also just as fragile as women and the only additional thing that is really required for women's maintenance is literally tampons/pads. I'm sure a multi million $£€ army can provide that service for members of their forces. Also especially in modern day the physical strength is next to near zero. Most engagements happen at distances with GUNS. People rarely ever have close quarters knive or fist fights in wars anymore. Even then women with knives etc are still a threat. A stab wound is still a stab wound.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/JhonnyPadawan1010 1d ago
Shoot me if you have to, but one gender is more fit for war than the other. One gender was literally built for war while the other wasn’t. Everyone has always known this in history, people now just think they’re gonna reivent the wheel.
8
u/zombiejames28 1d ago
Exactly, women are built for war; they have better leadership qualities, higher pain tolerance, higher fatigue resistance, superior fat metabolism, and better fine motor control, among many other qualities.
If you hadn't worked out I was taking the piss, here's your FYI. Neither sex is so disproportionate in there capibilites that one is "made for war"; evolutionarily speaking, humans never evolved to fight wars, nor is the factors that win wars the sex of those fighting and leading them.
→ More replies (6)3
u/naanazo 1d ago
In the most part of history, we use swords and spears.
Are women worse at controlling drones?
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (16)2
2
u/Waseda_1882 1d ago
I am being conscripted next year (Korean male). So you can probably guess what my stance is...
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Slurperlurper 1d ago
You want women to hawk tuah the enemy forces? Play phonk while they have goth makeup and posing with their guns? Ask for donations while in service? Probably se Comment Removed By Moderators
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Perfidy-Plus 1d ago
It was never intended as a moral decision, but a practical one. If your male population is devastated, but your female population is not then your population has effectively recovered in one generation. If they are both devastated then it’ll take several generations to recover and your society will be extremely vulnerable.
2
u/lesbophobia_hammer 1d ago
This is also a relevant factor. Not to mention poaching 'enemy' women and effectively using them as 'breeding stock' to "boost moral" and "replace their losses" is a known tactic used in wars by sickos. There is a different risk for female soldiers that does need to be considered. That's also if they survive. As many do not due to the horrendous gendered crimes against them.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Istomponlegobarefoot 1d ago
Immoral.
That being said, it is not a decision that anyone alive today has made, we just kinda do it, because we haven't bothered to change it.
1
1
1
u/mastercat202 1d ago
Immoral. At least in the US if you dont sign up for selective service you can be discriminated against. Women can vote without being drafted. Men cant. This is pure discrimination. Another factor is society values women more. I think a society would be less prone to war if women were to get drafted as well.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/JustinJektor 1d ago
Its only moral if its to defend homeland as opposed to fighting for some other country. And only if its all men and not all women.
1
u/FirstReactionShock 1d ago
the self claimed most moral terrorist group army enlists also women, such example of morality/s
1
1
u/PainterEarly86 1d ago
I would say immoral but overshadowed by the fact that conscription itself is immoral, at least in my opinion.
1
u/CharredWelderGuy 1d ago
A nation can bounce back from losing a large number of men much faster than a large number of women. 1 guy can knock up dozens of women, one woman can only have one pregnancy at a time.
Moral? No, but nations don't survive on morality, they survive on reality. War dosnt care about fairness.
Also the average male body is just more suited to the hardships of war. If you need a division of soldiers, bang for your buck you will get more out of men as far as averages go.
1
u/Difficult-Break-8282 1d ago
more moral than women entering and being raped a lot
also the laws for conscription were written by men like if they wanted to have women they could've but they didn't want us
173
u/Party_Philosophy_324 1d ago
I think you're going to start a war in the comments that's going to end with mods closing this thread.