EDIT: I moved in 2000. I finally took a call from the military police the day I landed in London, to gleefully tell them I'd left - the practice was that draft notices would not be delivered abroad, so moving effectively put an end to the matter. Norwegian law also required notifying the military if you left for more than 6 months, and provide evidence. I sent them a letter; they sent me one back demanding evidence. I told them the fact I'd received the letter was evidence and to stop bothering me. They did.
Basically, for the Americans who find this weird: In the countries in Europe where this is still a thing, this is a cold war holdover most places. When I was growing up air raid sirens were being tested monthly, and my primary schools' basement was a bomb shelter. It took a lot of time before things were relaxed after the fall of the Soviet Union.
When I was in Asia two years ago, as an American, every time I met a young Russian man escaping conscription, drinks were on me as appreciation to their commitment to world peace. I'm in South America now and it is being inundated with young Israeli men running like the Russians were. Nonetheless, I'm on the fence about how I feel buying them drinks.
If any claim ever required "citation needed", this one is the biggest.
I've never seen feminists fight for duties, only for privileges.
Do you agree that women and men should serve equally in front line combat?
Not heard anyone fight for that once. The more pressing issues seem to he "mansplaining" and men being shirtless in the summer.
> Nonetheless, I'm on the fence about how I feel buying them drinks.
Why?
These days it’s only social-media driven culture war of hateful men that blame all the problems of the world to women vs hateful women that blame all the problems of the world to men.
The way out is not “manosphere” or “feminism” but understand that 1) we are different despite the claims to the contrary and 2) all are deserving of respect and we need both to have a healthy society.
We won’t get there with DEI initiatives, female quotas and remaking movies with a ‘diverse’ cast, that’s just posturing and stoking the growing fires of culture war to the benefit of social media operators.
You have a group of citizens who are expected to perform military service, and another group who aren't really invested in the country and don't have to serve.
Why do we need this concept? Find a country you can be proud of, become a citizen, join its culture, and defend it when it is threatened. Don't go live somewhere or get citizenship just because it's convenient.
I agree with you, and I think a lot of the west's issues with immigration stem from not demanding this of immigrants past and present.
But the left isn't engaging with this conversation, and the right are just making hay with the fact that 'immigration isn't working'.
So yes I agree, but that isn't the conversation anyone else is having.
This seems very misinformed at least when it comes to Sweden. Upon war, everyone is obliged to defend the country. Nobody can leave unless you have a good reason.
If a woman wants to fight, that's another story entirely. But conscripting women? That's poison.
It's not the case with 1 woman and 20 men.
Or we could embrace equality and send 25 men and 25 women, leaving behind 25 of each to do whatever they want.
Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!
If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?
> And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder.
Women already contribute to society by being in the work force. If you think that's not enough, then you should probably think about rewarding them for doing something else.
This is not an argument, neither from theoretical nor practical point of view. This is akin to saying "Yeah, you want a universal health care for everyone, but I want everybody to be so rich that they can buy any insurance and bear any sudden health-costs". Not an argument, is it.
The reality is the way it is. Wars are always going to be fought and no amount of toxic peace wishing will change that.
If anything, adding women to the equation would:
1. make the force stronger. Therefore, a higher probability of not being attacked, and a higher probability of dominating the enemy (thus decreasing the total amount of victims).
2. make the political decisions to start wars much harder (in a good way).
This is exactly the reason why I am against the current American fight-for-money military and am for compulsory army service (like Finland), and for both sexes at that.
> If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?
That's my point exactly. If women are not doing their evolutionary job, why should men? There can only be 2 possible solutions:
1. no sex has any sex-specific obligations (be it giving birth or going to war)
2. or impose similar sex-specific obligations to both sexes.
Men already contribute to society by being in the work force (and do a much more important foundational work than women), and it is unfair to impose additional unilateral sexist obligations on only one sex.
Are you really for equality? Did you support women in this for the last couple of decades? Please be honest.
My morals are not that hard to understand.
Such was the way in the old times. At the same time when women were taking their own feminine role and were giving birth.
But this does not apply anymore. Check the population pyramids for various countries. Having a lot of young men that need their energy to be put somewhere is not a problem in modern Western societies.
No, it's equality.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you cannot have gender equality without either making the draft cover everyone or abolishing it entirely.
The fact that women losing their lives is so much larger a risk for the nation only serves to test the resolve of those people claiming to want gender equality, but this is not the only time you'll find a conflict between idealism and reality, even within the scope of gender equality.
But young men maybe dying after being forced to fight against their will? Completely fine.
It's honestly just very telling how in modern Western egalitarianism, gender essentialism is factually wrong and evil unless we're explaining why men need to die for their country.
I would rather both genders get drafted than be in a Ukraine situation where millions of women leave for richer countries while I am pulled off the street to go eat FPV drones. What's even the point? Why not surrender? What am I protecting or preserving?
> Why not surrender? Surrendering is not always practicable. You will get killed if you're a liability to your captors.
> What am I protecting or preserving? That's really only yours, and yours alone, to consider.
Any ruler wants active units of production (humans extracting money or gold or food), and for that it has to bring some sort of stable life environment and not be too greedy so people don't try to revolt.
Whether you get such through political negotiation before or after a war, or through a vote, or through a revolution, is the same as the end.
I would sooner die for my family and my country but I wouldn't lift a finger to save the lives of refugees/immigrants.
Why not? If the male side has "getting droned your legs off and people watching it in 4k", surely everything less than that has to be on the table for the female side. Not being able to vote physically yourself (you can still influence public opinion, eg through social media, imo a far more effective action than casting 1 vote)
I'm more thinking about leaving asap.
The risk to feminism would be that this becomes so blatantly and obviously not true that no one can take it seriously. I don't think the continued draft of men would impact this because it's not a change to the status quo, and it isn't changing opinion in Ukraine.
Definitely going to have to disagree there.