Conscription and women

[Beorning]

Something I've been kind of thinking about lately...

Quite recently, Latvia has reactivated / reintroduced compulsory military service for men (due to Russia's attack on Ukraine). There are some talks about doing it here in Poland, too. Now, if that happens, I won't be happy about it, as I think that conscription is a bad system both from the point of view of the civil rights and from the point of view of military needs. But there's one other aspect:

If conscription is reintroduced in 21st century, shouldn't it cover men *and* women equally?

As far as I know, Latvia is currently drafting only men - and, if we get a return to draft in Poland, I suspect that would be the case, too. But isn't it quite... horrible? Modern military has a lot of roles that can be filled by people of any sex. So, the idea that a modern state could keep drafting only men, seems undefensible...

I don't want to sound like one of the "Men's Rights Activists", but that bothers me.

[GloomCookie]

Conscription isn't as common as it once was, but used to every army had a core of professional soldiers who were full time and then during times of war would rapidly increase their forces through conscription. The fact that the United States and other nations have gone to 100% voluntary is great, but men in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 are still required to register for the draft and could potentially be called up for active service.

The debate around including women in the draft isn't new though. I graduated high school in 2005, and the debates came up about women being drafted because in 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. I distinctly remember this conversation:

History teacher: Well, if they can't fill their numbers, the Army might start drafting people.

Female student: Hmmph, bye bye boys!

History teacher: They're talking about including women too though.

Female student: Oh hell no!

The reason politicians are hesitant is because, especially in the US, there's a ton of traditionalists who believe women have no place on the battlefield, despite women being in the military for several decades.

There are definite pros to conscripting women (or just people in general): For one, conscripts can be used to fill less critical roles in the armed services, such as sanitation duties, clerical duties, general labor, etc. They don't need a lot of training and it gets people who would otherwise be tied up doing basic tasks off doing more mission critical tasks while still respecting their MOS. Second, it's no secret that a lot of men and women would fail current military guidelines for health and wellness.

The cons are two fold. One, the Army already has a problem with women in the armed services in trying to both outfit them and provide for basic needs like menstruation. Second, you're pouring a lot of people who don't want to be there into a group that already is going to have morale issues.

Note that a cursory glance at Wikipedia states that in both 2020 and 2021 there were attempts to revise the Military Selective Service Act (Which covers the draft in the United States) to use non-gendered language.

Either way, conscription is a stop-gap measure if the military can't get the bodies it needs from voluntary enlistment. At that point, the military is less likely to take on individuals who are a good fit and more or less take anyone, which can (and does) lead to problems.

From what I'm able to find, Poland has a current force of 164,000 personnel in its military, of which 25,000 are actively deployed, with 16,000 personnel recruited in 2022.  According to https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pl-personnel.htm which also included an interesting blurb about Poland's workaround to active conscription:

Poland’s army said 18 May 2022 it was launching a new form of military service amid security concerns because of the war in neighbouring Ukraine. The Polish military said volunteers will be able to provide a year’s paid service that can be turned into long-term or professional service. Those who enter the program will go through a 28-day training period with a military unit, and then perform 11 months of service. They will receive a pre-tax monthly salary of some 4,500 zlotys ($1,000). The first volunteers will be able to enlist from 21 May 2022.

In mid-July 2021, PiS president Jaroslaw Kaczynski announced that a program of expansion and "very serious" strengthening of the Polish Armed Forces was being prepared. The head of the Ministry of National Defense, Mariusz Blaszczak, announced an army of 250,000, would then reach approximately the size of the French army (now it has about 270,000 soldiers). The number of soldiers of the Territorial Defense Forces (Territorial Defense Forces) was to increase to 50,000. This would have to result in at least doubling the budget of the Armed Forces. The head of the Ministry of National Defense recalled that the outlays and defense would increase. In 2020, they were 2.37 percent. GDP, and by 2030 it is expected to amount to 2.5 percent. GDP. - But these are also too low amounts - assessed Blaszczak. Blaszczak emphasized that the law prepared by the Committee for National Security and Defense Affairs would be presented this autumn . "These documents will create the basis for increasing the size of the Polish Army, and the financing mechanism will be the basic element of this act" - emphasized the head of the Ministry of National Defense.

If this is indeed the case, then Poland might be able to avoid conscription while still keeping a voluntary force willing and capable of taking on Russia should the need arise.

[Beorning]

Something I need to clarify is that I'm not referring strictly to wartime draft / conscription (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms)... I don't know how it worked in the States, but back here, up until around 20 years ago, there was this regular yearly draft. Basically, all men had to register for draft after reaching adulthood - and, if they were deemed physically fit, they got drafted for a year or two (I'm not sure how long exactly) of regular service. Meaning, they had to report to an appropriate unit / base, live in the barracks etc. You were exempt from this if you were deemed too... flawed physically (my case) or had some other excuse (like being a sole provider for a family or having qualified for university-level education). But overall, for the men of my generation, being ripped from home and being sent to barracks on another side of the country was an unpleasant looming threat in our young adult days.

Personally, I'm a strong opponent of such compulsory military service for both humanitarian and practical reasons. Speaking from the human rights perspective, being needlessly into forced military service is just cruel - and potentially abusive. I suspect (or hope..?) that things improved when it comes to the military mentality in the last two decades... but in my youth, there were horror stories circulating about what military service could be like. Violence, all kinds of bullying, suicides... take your pick.

On the practical side? I'm a clinical psychologist by education and, after getting my Masters, I was an intern at a military psychiatric facility. We occassionally got sent draftees to diagnose or treat. And, well... having seen these guys, I'm convinced that you cannot build a good military based on this kind of recruits. Seriously, what's the actual combat value of a small, physically unfit and super-anxious young boy?

So, yeah - I'm against the draft. On the other hand, if such form of draft was reintroduced - why would women be exempt from it? Why should the aforementioned anxious and clumsy boy be considered obligated to serve, while fit and mentally balanced women would not? This makes neither ethical or practical sense...

As for the possibility of such draft being reintroduced in Poland - we might not need it, but you need to remember that our government is severely right-wing *and* (hypocritically enough) quite enamoured with the ruling methods of the old Communist regime. Jarosław Kaczyński (AKA the Chairman and the Saviour of the Nation) has already expressed opinion that compulsory military service is needed for building the national spirit etc. So...

[Azy]

Israel has compulsory military service, and women are included.  They do have exceptions for Palestinian residents, those who enter religious studies, very religious/traditional women, and of course those who are not physically and/or mentally fit.  I was unfortunately not able to find a good source for that in English, but that seems to be the gist of it.  But that's their culture.

Here in the US, women who wanted to serve had to fight to be able to.  For the longest time they could fill non combat rolls, but couldn't be in combat.  The popular argument was it would be a distraction to the men.  Not sexually, but the men would be protective of the women and not focused on the job at hand.  Since women have been allowed to serve rape has been a major issue, but that's another topic. 

I'm sure it also has to do with stereotypes.  Men are more physically fit.  They're bigger and stronger.  Women are too emotional to handle to job.  Women who have served have proved they could do it, but old fashioned thinking is probably going to be around for a while. 

Me... I hear bone spurs will get you out of a draft.  I actually have one.  I don't need to pay a doctor to lie for me, just tell them to x-ray my left arm, and it's pretty hard to miss.       

[GloomCookie]

Something I need to clarify is that I'm not referring strictly to wartime draft / conscription (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms)... I don't know how it worked in the States, but back here, up until around 20 years ago, there was this regular yearly draft. Basically, all men had to register for draft after reaching adulthood - and, if they were deemed physically fit, they got drafted for a year or two (I'm not sure how long exactly) of regular service. Meaning, they had to report to an appropriate unit / base, live in the barracks etc. You were exempt from this if you were deemed too... flawed physically (my case) or had some other excuse (like being a sole provider for a family or having qualified for university-level education). But overall, for the men of my generation, being ripped from home and being sent to barracks on another side of the country was an unpleasant looming threat in our young adult days.

Just so everyone is on the same page. In the United States, men are required to sign up for Selective Service, often known as the draft, and are kept in the system from ages 18 to 25. This is because while the United States does maintain a large volunteer force, it was necessary even into the 1970's to draft men to send to conflicts such as Vietnam. There is no mandatory testing required considering the US hasn't used the draft in almost 5 decades, but it's still mandatory for men.

Personally, I'm a strong opponent of such compulsory military service for both humanitarian and practical reasons. Speaking from the human rights perspective, being needlessly into forced military service is just cruel - and potentially abusive. I suspect (or hope..?) that things improved when it comes to the military mentality in the last two decades... but in my youth, there were horror stories circulating about what military service could be like. Violence, all kinds of bullying, suicides... take your pick.

On the practical side? I'm a clinical psychologist by education and, after getting my Masters, I was an intern at a military psychiatric facility. We occassionally got sent draftees to diagnose or treat. And, well... having seen these guys, I'm convinced that you cannot build a good military based on this kind of recruits. Seriously, what's the actual combat value of a small, physically unfit and super-anxious young boy?

So, yeah - I'm against the draft. On the other hand, if such form of draft was reintroduced - why would women be exempt from it? Why should the aforementioned anxious and clumsy boy be considered obligated to serve, while fit and mentally balanced women would not? This makes neither ethical or practical sense...

As for the possibility of such draft being reintroduced in Poland - we might not need it, but you need to remember that our government is severely right-wing *and* (hypocritically enough) quite enamoured with the ruling methods of the old Communist regime. Jarosław Kaczyński (AKA the Chairman and the Saviour of the Nation) has already expressed opinion that compulsory military service is needed for building the national spirit etc. So...

I too am against forcing anyone to serve, but I'm also a realist. War is becoming less common, but it is still an issue, and for smaller countries (population wise, not necessarily size), the number of voluntary personnel is small. Consider that Poland has a population of 37,750,000, and of those numbers, only 164,000 personnel are active military, or less than 0.5% of the total population. The United States, as of the time of this writing, has 1,328,000 active personnel, out of a population of 331,900,000, or just over 0.4%. That trend of having approximately half a percent of your population active at any given time is what's crucial. For any voluntary force, you're always dependent on the population as a whole deciding they wish to actively participate in the military.

Should the United States be required to actively enable the draft, that 1.3 million number balloons to 15 million currently registered for the draft.

If war were actively based on numbers, then the United States would have roughly 1 soldier for every 2.5 people in Poland. But, we do not live in such a world anymore, hence why the United States hasn't had an active draft since 1973. But, in the event of a total war (which the world hasn't seen since WW2), then you need all hands on deck. There's just no getting around that sometimes you just need people to do the job.

Israel has compulsory military service, and women are included.  They do have exceptions for Palestinian residents, those who enter religious studies, very religious/traditional women, and of course those who are not physically and/or mentally fit.  I was unfortunately not able to find a good source for that in English, but that seems to be the gist of it.  But that's their culture.

Here in the US, women who wanted to serve had to fight to be able to.  For the longest time they could fill non combat rolls, but couldn't be in combat.  The popular argument was it would be a distraction to the men.  Not sexually, but the men would be protective of the women and not focused on the job at hand.  Since women have been allowed to serve rape has been a major issue, but that's another topic. 

I'm sure it also has to do with stereotypes.  Men are more physically fit.  They're bigger and stronger.  Women are too emotional to handle to job.  Women who have served have proved they could do it, but old fashioned thinking is probably going to be around for a while. 

Me... I hear bone spurs will get you out of a draft.  I actually have one.  I don't need to pay a doctor to lie for me, just tell them to x-ray my left arm, and it's pretty hard to miss.       

The issues the US armed services have had trying to integrate women into the service is a long and complicated one. While rape is a major problem certainly, there are a number of women who wind up getting pregnant while in service, which in and of itself becomes an issue since you can't send a pregnant woman into combat. For the Army/Marines/Air Force/Space Force, that's one thing since they tend to have forward operating bases, but what about the Navy? How do you get a pregnant woman off a vessel intending to be at sea for 3+ months? It becomes a logistical headache.

I have zero doubt a woman can do the job of a man in the military, even if men are physically stronger (on average, don't hate me for this). I wish I had better statistics on hand to see how women compare to men in combat operations, but as Azy pointed out, trying to get women into combat roles has been an uphill struggle, and I imagine it's going to take a few more constellations and the removal of a few ring knockers before we see any major change in current US doctrine.

[Oniya]

there are a number of women who wind up getting pregnant while in service, which in and of itself becomes an issue since you can't send a pregnant woman into combat. For the Army/Marines/Air Force/Space Force, that's one thing since they tend to have forward operating bases, but what about the Navy? How do you get a pregnant woman off a vessel intending to be at sea for 3+ months? It becomes a logistical headache.

Probably the same way that you'd get any crewman off that needed medical care above and beyond what the ship could provide.  Med-evac has been a thing for a long time.

[GloomCookie]

Probably the same way that you'd get any crewman off that needed medical care above and beyond what the ship could provide.  Med-evac has been a thing for a long time.

Maybe.

Consider if the ship is operating near hostile waters in a no-fly zone, and the ship can't readily leave due to their mission, such as being in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf? Then there's the South China Sea where depending on where the ship is operating might be beyond the range of helicopter support. The range on a US Navy MH-60R transport helicopter is 834km (520 miles) which limits operational flight time. The nearest US military base in the South China Sea is Cagayan in the Philippines, which does cover the bulk of the South China Sea but still leaves crucial areas where immediate evacuation of personnel can and will be dangerous or impossible.

[Oniya]

A similar argument could be made for the crewman that has - for example - suffered an injury resulting in amputation, with the added comment that a pregnant woman is more likely to be medically stable than said crewman while awaiting the necessary evac.

[Keelan]

A similar argument could be made for the crewman that has - for example - suffered an injury resulting in amputation, with the added comment that a pregnant woman is more likely to be medically stable than said crewman while awaiting the necessary evac.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Detailing/Deployability/Active-Duty-Pregnancy/#:~:text=Officer%20and%20Enlisted%20Service%20members,personal%20need%2C%20which%20warrant%20separation.

3.  All Pregnant Service Members:

     a.  May remain onboard a ship until the 20th week of pregnancy.  A Service member discovered to be pregnant while underway/deployed should be transferred ashore as soon as possible given the constraints of the ship’s location, current mission, next port call, health of the service member and/or unborn
child(ren), etc.

     b.  Should not be assigned to units that are deploying from the 20th week of pregnancy through 12 months following delivery and release from their medical providers.  Under no circumstance shall a pregnant Service member remain onboard past the 20th week of pregnancy without a waiver.

     c.  May continue to serve aboard ships while in port or during short underway periods, provided an evacuation capability exists and the time for medical evacuation is less than six hours to a treatment facility capable of evaluating and stabilizing obstetric emergencies; this requirement includes Temporary Additional Duty (TDY) orders.  The six-hour rule is not intended to allow pregnant Service members to operate routinely at sea, but rather to provide the CO flexibility during short underway periods, as described above.

[Oniya]

So there are already regulations and protocols in place.  Paperwork is likely to be a bitch, but that's always the case.

[Vekseid]

One thing of note is not all conscription needs to be war-related. In the US we have environmental projects that fall under the same authority.

Maybe.

Consider if the ship is operating near hostile waters in a no-fly zone, and the ship can't readily leave due to their mission, such as being in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf? Then there's the South China Sea where depending on where the ship is operating might be beyond the range of helicopter support. The range on a US Navy MH-60R transport helicopter is 834km (520 miles) which limits operational flight time. The nearest US military base in the South China Sea is Cagayan in the Philippines, which does cover the bulk of the South China Sea but still leaves crucial areas where immediate evacuation of personnel can and will be dangerous or impossible.

There is no foreseeable war in which the US operates naval forces beneath hostile airspace. If a ship is in the SCS when war breaks out, any routine orders go out the window. Either the US neutralizes China's missile assets, or that ship will no longer be on the surface of the SCS. One way or another. Someone being pregnant is going to be a tertiary concern.

Given the way the US has clowned Iranian and Russian platforms, no else is going to be enforcing a NFZ on the US in the next few decades.

[Captain Maltese]

Norway has had the draft for men since it came into existence as a nation, that is in 1905. Our armed forces are divided into an enlisted core (specialists, officers, various staff) and a drafted one; the proportions of these have varied a lot since the start. In the 1970s women were allowed to enlist, in the 1980s the first women were allowed to volunteer for the draft, in 2016 the draft became obligatory for all genders. Now, assuming the last numbers I found are correct, 29% of all positions in the armed forces are filled by women. As far as I can tell from media and from female relatives who have served, it is going swimmingly. Men and women live in the same rooms in the barracks, do the same jobs, and the percentage of women completing their service period is actually slightly higher than the male one. There has been a few abuse cases, but compared to what is reported from perfectly normal civilian schools the numbers are way lower.

The draft in Norway is somewhat different from some other countries, but these things were introduced long before women arrived and did not change with them. We serve one year in the ranks, then is transferred to the reserves. The drafted never serve outside the country's borders. And while everyone are eligible for service, the actual number of drafted is very small and only the very best are picked. In reality there is wild competition for being picked among those who are fittest, smartest and fastest and some start training hard an entire year before the draft picks are done. Don't want to get drafted? Just show up on pick day and say you aren't interested, and you are free to go. This is very different from my generation, where 3 out of 4 men had to serve and very many were not wanting to serve.

Our armed forces were always small. Why go for draft when full enlistment could have filled up the same uniforms in peacetime? The answer is, we are not planning for peacetime. If war does come across our borders AGAIN, that peacetime army will balloon up ten times in size in a day as we have a large number of trained reserves to draw on. Other countries, like USA with almost a hundred time as many citizens, do not have the same concern of being invaded. Or the experience of being occupied. But for us, this is the only way we can protect our land. I can think nothing better than that our women can stand guard side by side with our men.

[Clio]

I am against conscription, mandatory service, and drafts for a variety of reasons (human rights, religious beliefs, war being...you know...bad overall), but IF there is to be a draft, then I don't think it should make a distinction based on gender. If a woman or AFAB person is able-bodied and does not have an exemption based on beliefs (like Quakers, Amish, etc...) then there's no reason not to. I am ineligible due to a few of things (disability, Quaker, age), but any "argument" used to discredit feminism should be carefully viewed. I am also acknowledging that I'm saying this as someone who would not have to serve, and my view is not nearly as valuable or applicable as those who would be eligible. This is also based on the assumption that they will be treated equal...and unfortunately, we know they will not.

It is a complex issue, and there are a variety of reasons that women and trans people especially are often unsafe in the military (at least in the American military). These things NEED to be addressed before they start forcing people of more vulnerable demographics into situations where they would be in danger. I'm not speaking of combat, as all genders face danger there. I am speaking of the rape culture and sexual harassment that is rampant.

So although at the core, I don't believe drafts should be gendered, I also think they need drastic reform first. And, of course, I don't think there should ever be a draft at all. I would protest against it if it ever happened. The massive military culture of the US is another issue that needs addressing, but I suppose we're lucky in a way that a draft has not been needed since Vietnam and there is no prediction that one will ever (hopefully) be reinstated.

[RedRose]

There's no way I could have handled a dorm life that would be mixed personally (beliefs, culture, call it what you like). But again I'm vehemently against mandatory army, unless it's a life or death sitch. AND if you like it to happen, you should be able to accommodate people's needs. Which might be impossible, hence my being vehemently against it.

[Clio]

There's no way I could have handled a dorm life that would be mixed personally (beliefs, culture, call it what you like). But again I'm vehemently against mandatory army, unless it's a life or death sitch. AND if you like it to happen, you should be able to accommodate people's needs. Which might be impossible, hence my being vehemently against it.

That's totally valid. And I understand that many people have super valid reasons that they're against it. Plus, I'm always speaking in hypotheticals as I mentioned I'm vehemently against drafts or mandatory service. Even in a life or death situation, I can understand offering incentive...but it would be a hard sell based on my human rights beliefs. I think the main thing I was getting at is that things like this are often used to discredit feminism as a whole, and although it's a flawed argument, I can see how this would allow many people to continue their outdated views on gender.

All in all, it's a super complex situation that is way above my pay grade. XD

[Silk]

I don't like the idea of the draft, but if things are so dire that it's become required then everyone should be pitching in to the ability that they are able.

[CopperLily]

Personally, I'm against conscription, and the handful of military officers I've talked to about it over the years all look fairly queasy when the idea gets brought up. But given it exists, I think the only defensible position to take is that it should be universal. There's also a pragmatic aspect to this belief - women being part of the draft doubles the pool of people who have a direct stake in keeping the draft from being reinstated, and exploits old patriarchal squeamishness about someone's daughter going to war.

[Chulanowa]

Really? Let's think about that for a moment. If things are "so dire" but nobody is "pitching in," then who, exactly, is it "dire" for?

If the populace is so unwilling to take up arms voluntarily, then who, exactly, is the fight being fought for?

If the people understand that their interests are not actually involved, and so do not wish to risk their lives and well-being for it, then why the lust to force them to do so?

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

I don't like the idea of the draft, but if things are so dire that it's become required then everyone should be pitching in to the ability that they are able.

[Oniya]

I think part of the artificial dilemma is that people assume 'draft/conscription' means 'sending to the front line with a gun'.  There were and are numerous support positions in the military.  While it's a fictional milieu, take a look at all of the different positions shown on M*A*S*H:  Guy in the mess tent?  He was drafted.  All the doctors and nurses?  Drafted.  Company clerk?  Drafted.  Army chaplain?  Most likely.  Mechanics in the auto pool?  Yep.

Could these people pick up a gun and defend themselves?  Most likely.  They weren't brought in to do that, though.

[CopperLily]

I think part of the artificial dilemma is that people assume 'draft/conscription' means 'sending to the front line with a gun'.  There were and are numerous support positions in the military.  While it's a fictional milieu, take a look at all of the different positions shown on M*A*S*H:  Guy in the mess tent?  He was drafted.  All the doctors and nurses?  Drafted.  Company clerk?  Drafted.  Army chaplain?  Most likely.  Mechanics in the auto pool?  Yep.

Could these people pick up a gun and defend themselves?  Most likely.  They weren't brought in to do that, though.

One of the problems is that in our two most recent generation-long wars, "Front Line" and "Not Front Line" positions got more than a little blurry.

[Keelan]

Really? Let's think about that for a moment. If things are "so dire" but nobody is "pitching in," then who, exactly, is it "dire" for?

If the populace is so unwilling to take up arms voluntarily, then who, exactly, is the fight being fought for?

If the people understand that their interests are not actually involved, and so do not wish to risk their lives and well-being for it, then why the lust to force them to do so?

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

I'm having a really hard time reading this as anything other than "Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition, then they deserve to be crushed"

Can you clarify your stance here?

[Chulanowa]

I'm having a really hard time reading this as anything other than "Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition, then they deserve to be crushed"

Can you clarify your stance here?

Really. You looked at what I wrote, and came away with a nearly inverse reading of it?

That's genuinely fascinating.

Anyway, that sounds like a struggle well above my pay grade to address. What I wrote is still where I left it, feel freed to keep working on it.

[Oniya]

Looks like a fairly accurate description of your last paragraph's 'if A then B' statement:

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so,

"Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition,

then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

then they deserve to be crushed"

[Chulanowa]

Looks like a fairly accurate description of your last paragraph's 'if A then B' statement:

Wow, you're right. How foolish of me to assume I know my own statement better than someone else. Imagine a dumbfuck like me choosing to use one word as the object of a sentence, not realizing that I actually meant a completely different word which totally changes the meaning of that sentence. Because I'm too stupid and inept to understand my own point and just completely fucked it up. Thank goodness you and Keelan were here to set me straight and show me the words I actually meant, and the meaning I actually intended.

Thank you.

[Oniya]

Perhaps with your superior grammar and logic, you can actually make an explanation instead of blathering on.