If conscription was reintroduced, do you think it would be male only?
Posted by PuzzledAd4865@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 230 comments
It’s obviously not likely in the short term, but if in a few years it was decided to be necessary, would both genders be conscripted?
Dribblygills@reddit
I mean, they wanted equality...
DotComprehensive4902@reddit
If it is reintroduced, I think it will be both men and women.
Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan@reddit
There won’t be conscription.
However, in a hypothetical scenario where conscription did occur, I believe it would be unwise to conscript women. If such a measure were necessary, it would likely indicate a large-scale conflict with significant casualties expected. In that context, it would be sensible to prioritise the safety of women, given their crucial role in repopulating society after such a war.
Speaking from personal experience in the military, I don’t believe women should serve in front-line combat roles. That policy decision appeared to be driven more by diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations than by the question that should have been central: Does this make combat units more effective and lethal? In my opinion, it does not.
Qu1rkycat@reddit
Do you think it would make a difference if the war was being fought elsewhere or on British land? I’m curious. I can’t imagine myself being especially enthusiastic about going elsewhere to fight but if there were enemy troops here in my city I think I’d have quite the motivation to protect my family.
Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan@reddit
I think if the enemy is already in your city, then it is too late for conscription.
Qu1rkycat@reddit
I wasn’t speaking about the conscription part; I was speaking about the utility in front line roles part.
Yes - a sense of duty probably would be stronger if it felt like the country was actually set up to look after people. Too many instances of a few rich people drawing up the ladder behind them, I’m afraid.
Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan@reddit
Do you mean women in frontline units?
No, it is not really to do with that. Those in WW1 were hardly well off and many would live in conditions of poverty that would be unimaginable to those born today.
This is to do with the change in education (the march through the institutions). The erosion of ideas such as duty, selfless commitment, and country. Ie Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
First-Lengthiness-16@reddit
I don’t think society is ready to see women dying in combat. Yes, the world is a more equal place, but violence towards women is condemned to a greater degree and victims of violence that are female are given more sympathy than male victims.
So conception into the military directly would likely be male only.
Women would be put in more support roles.
Let’s hope it never happens
eyeball-beesting@reddit
This comment in seeped in fucking misogyny. 🤮
First-Lengthiness-16@reddit
No it isn’t at all
eyeball-beesting@reddit
So, firstly you haven't acknowledged that women are actually dying in combat. Secondly, you are spewing that bullshit rhetoric that women are cared about more than men.
First-Lengthiness-16@reddit
lol.
So let me get this right
Claim: “violence towards women is condemned to a greater extent by society than violence towards men”.
You “This is bigoted towards women”.
Women are not dying in combat in the UK army. A small number died outside of combat in the evil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were in support not combat roles.
Is it your genuinely held position that a man punching a woman is not held in greater contempt by society than a man punching another man?
Jesus Christ.
eyeball-beesting@reddit
Yes, they have died in combat- not in supportive roles. KIA.
"Is it your genuinely held position that a man punching a woman is not held in greater contempt by society than a man punching another man?"
Take a little re-read of what you have written. Figure out what you are missing and then get back to me.
SimpleLion2960@reddit
I really don't actually see your point. Can you please explain?
eyeball-beesting@reddit
A woman isn't in both parts of the equation. It isn't about sympathy for the woman, just contempt for the man. A man hitting a woman is seen as weak. Kind of a "real men fight men" thing.
To make it fair, you would have to put it as
When a man punches a man compared to a woman punching a woman. In this scenario, there is no extra contempt for the attacker and no extra sympathy for the attacked. So this has nothing to do with women getting hurt.
It has nothing to do with caring about women more- just seeing women as weaker and men being weaker for hitting them.
Do you understand now?
SimpleLion2960@reddit
I understand, but I would disagree. I think both things can exist at the same time. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a man hitting a woman is seen as cowardly because a typical man will be stronger than a typical woman. At the same time, that can be true while also appreciating a concern for women in those situations, for the reason I just outlined. It's why I personally disagree with people who harp online about 'equal rights, equal fights' (e.g. a man entitled to hit a woman if the woman instigates.) While certainly not the case for all women, a man punching a woman is far more likely to do serious damage than vice versa, so I don't particularly think it's okay to hit a woman even if provoked physically first.
eyeball-beesting@reddit
I think you have missed my point entirely.
SimpleLion2960@reddit
You're not exactly making it clear, apologies.
eyeball-beesting@reddit
I could get some crayons and draw you a picture?
First-Lengthiness-16@reddit
No they have not died in combat.
I’m asking for your view, I can’t get that from what I wrote.
YchYFi@reddit
Women are on front line combat in the British army.
First-Lengthiness-16@reddit
We are talking about conscription.
I also didn’t give my view, but the view I think people have.
I am guessing you are a woman by your profile picture thing? I would be judged far harsher for punching you in the face than you would be for punching me.
There is a not small chance that people would laugh if they saw you punching me. There is a not small chance I would be attacked by other men if they saw me punching you.
When casualty reports are made, you hear “x amount of women and children” as that makes it worse. You never hear “10,000 dead, including 7,000 men”.
TellMeItsN0tTrue@reddit
The problem is less seeing women die in combat but more that you need more women than men to continue your population. Not the nicest thing but it's far worse for 20% of your female population to die from a reproductive perspective than for 20% of your male population. Obviously both are horrific from a human persepective but your population will struggle to continue going with a reduced female population. Look at the problem in countries such as China or India with sex-selective abortions and infanticide of baby girls.
Rape of women on the front lines would also be a huge issue. Women would be allowed to serve if they chose but you wouldn't have women conscripted into the front lines, as you said it would be support or non-military roles.
SEAN0_91@reddit
What about the people who identify as washing machines?
SoggyWotsits@reddit
Well they were in WW2, so I think they would be again. Childless widows and single women were called up if they were between the ages of 20 and 30.
Things regarding men and women are rather more complex now, so it’s probably just easier to include everyone!
fuckshitballs28@reddit
Its not more complex, they are either male or female. End of.
SoggyWotsits@reddit
I think so too. But I think a lot of people would argue otherwise when it came to being called up!
fuckshitballs28@reddit
I will be honest, i served 4 years in the infantry and the way this country is heading, there would be no way on gods green earth that i would fight for this country again. I would be one of the ones arguing against it myself.
SilverellaUK@reddit
My aunt was in the land army. The 'cook' sent them out to work in the fields with a lunch of 2 slices of dry bread with raw beetroot between. Many of the girls left before the cook was sacked for profiteering as she was pocketing most of the food allowance money. My aunt stayed, married a farm worker and lived in the village most of her life.
I'm not sure what happened to the girls who left. Also, I know that there was rationing but they lived on a farm with chickens so eggs were plentiful.
TheUnicornRevolution@reddit
Wow, thank you for sharing that.
I found this and it's fascinating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/women_at_war_01.shtml
SingerFirm1090@reddit
An interesting question.
If the next 'world war' goes nuclear, conscription will be a bit academic.
Assuming it does not, judging by Ukraine, fighting is no longer 'labour intensive' like it was in WW1 & WW2. Society, certainly in the UK, has changed, I doubt if conscription would work anyway, a lot of people who not respond to 'call up' letters.
A recent YouGov survey (in the UK) show that 38% of under-40s say they would refuse to serve in the armed forces in the event of a new world war, and 30% say they would not serve even if Britain was facing imminent invasion.
Qu1rkycat@reddit
Wow as an under 40 year old, I’m amazed at these figures and how little difference there is between them. I’m surprised that the number of people willing to fight isn’t lower initially, but equally I’m surprised that the number isn’t higher when faced with imminent invasion. What do people think would happen if we did get invaded, they can just sit it out??
Qu1rkycat@reddit
Maybe there are a fair few “don’t knows” or “maybes” contributing here
timbono5@reddit
Male only conscription would breach the Equality Act surely?
Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan@reddit
Under Schedule 9, Part 1, paragraph 4 the military can avoid certain requirements of the act if it can be demonstrated that doing so is a proportionate means of ensuring combat effectiveness.
2024-YR4@reddit
They've already thought about that years ago.
There is a specific exemption in the European Convention of Human Rights for military service.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
PatchyWhiskers@reddit
Yes, because if they were excluded it makes men feel superior to women and gives them a “protect the little ladies” complex.
Plus, war in the future is going to have very little hand-to-hand combat wearing a big pack. Controlling drones doesn’t need muscle.
Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan@reddit
I'm sorry, but it is evident you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'm guessing you haven't served a day in your life, right?
Even in the future, you will require people on the front line, engaging in close combat, especially as the topography is increasingly becoming more built up. Why will you need people to do this? Because drones can not take and hold ground.
The army isn't about to all become drone operators. What you will likely see, like the machine gun in ww1, is increasingly drones will be pushed down to company, platoon or section level to increase the lethality of that formation.
Spiderinahumansuit@reddit
I'm sorry, but your second paragraph is just... wrong. At least in the short to medium term. Infantry will typically carry a load which can get up to 50kg, including pack, rifle, water, helmet and so on.
It's all very well and good blithely assuming everyone will be a drone pilot, but drones, while useful, don't have the tactical flexibility of infantry; they can't escort well, they can't hold a position well, they can't do mine clearance. And that's just off the top of my head.
PatchyWhiskers@reddit
Assign the big tough men to hand-to-hand combat then, and women to things that don’t need muscles.
DizzyMine4964@reddit
No. But I think it should start with all MPs under 30 and all adult children and grandchildren of MPs.
aiwg@reddit
They'd design a loophole that allowed them to get out, like the US did with Vietnam.
DasharrEandall@reddit
Conscription already needs to exclude those in certain professions, like those in food production and certain kinds of technical production (to keep the war effort fed and equipped). It's not difficupt to come up with an argument about national-level decision-making capability, ie politicians. I'm not saying it's morally right that the people responsible for a war aren't the ones facing the consequences of it, but it nearly always happens.
No-Cost-1045@reddit
MPs over 30 will lead to greater numbers.
Maleficent_Wash7203@reddit
Lol second they conscript some of my friends they will be getting pregnant to get a free pass out. I would have a go at protecting the country but I have autoimmune so might be not allowed either 🙃
SebsNan@reddit
I can't see how it could be male only? The feminist movement has fought tooth and nail for equality in every situation , there's no way it could be excepted from conscription.
SpringFell@reddit
I have a feeling that if it were inclusive, there would suddenly be a lot of pregnancies among the women just before they were set to join.
One possible way of boosting the fertility rate...
2024-YR4@reddit
Downvoted, but speaking the truth.
Lots of people will be doing whatever it takes not to get conscripted.
2024-YR4@reddit
IMHO, I think all DE&I would go out the window and it would be just men again in the UK.
All these people saying woman were conscripted in previous wars are talking crap. There is a world of difference between working a 9 to 5 in a nice warm munitions factory in the UK, and laying in a muddy field getting shot at and blown up.
cragwatcher@reddit
I don't think there will be conscription, but if there was, I think it would be both male and female, with other options rather than just military. Logistics, tech, medical etc
tomcat_murr@reddit
Piloting drones from the comfort of your gaming chair.
GreyFoxNinjaFan@reddit
This is basically the plot of Armada by Ernst Cline (better known for Ready Player One)
precinctomega@reddit
cragwatcher@reddit
No I don't. I mean people would also be conscripted into non military organisations
SaxonChemist@reddit
This was sort of done during WWII, conscientious objectors to military service were often sent down the mines. Their service actually lasted longer than military service did
jonewer@reddit
Conshies often went onto bomb disposal squads, which I think illustrates the difference between objecting to fighting and a willingness to put themselves in harm's way
SaxonChemist@reddit
In WWI some were sent to be stretcher bearers. Running into a hail of bullets and shells utterly unarmed to rescue the wounded...
I'm too old for conscription now but I have a similar objection to killing people... but not to service, so I could well have seen myself in such a role (before med school, now I think they'd just send me to a hospital)
Unlikely-Ad5982@reddit
Totally correct. There’s a big difference between not wanting to cause harm (the best term I could think of) and being afraid of risk. Some of the conscientious objectors demonstrated incredible courage.
Aromatic-Cover-7615@reddit
Women were also conscripted into non-combatant military roles during WWII, in the WAAF, WRNS, and Auxiliary Territorial Service. This was besides the movement of women into essential work by the Ministry of Labour, including ammunition factories, farm labourers (Women’s Land Army), and forestry (Lumberjanes).
HawkProfessional8863@reddit
if I was on the front line I'd just cry everytime I had to shoot someone and get annoyed at being hungry and dehydrated and basically bring down everyone's morale so much that we'd lose - and that's what I'd tell the guy employed to conscript me.
melijoray@reddit
You'd be a medic or a cook.
deepfriedjobbie@reddit
Put it this way, with our obesity, health and mental health crisis in our populace, we need women on the battlefield. We would probably require pensioners for a home guard at this point. Got a gut feeling that the government would have a hard time conscripting people, right enough. We haven’t exactly had a country worth fighting for over the last decade.
BluePandaYellowPanda@reddit
Yes, it should be exactly the same between males and females.
TemporaryLucky3637@reddit
If women were conscripted too there’d have to be something in place where couples with kids under 18 could choose which one of them stayed to look after the children. Or they’d have to only conscript very young people. It would be an admin nightmare working it all out 😂
D0wnInAlbion@reddit
Grandparents.
Adam_Da_Egret@reddit
I’d rather send my father to fight than my wife
aiwg@reddit
In ww2, being a married woman excluded you from service.
schaweniiia@reddit
If it's introduced, it should be for both, no question.
But I also think there should be a provision for parents where max. one parent per parent couple can be conscripted.
In breastfeeding years, that should automatically be the mother and later on, it should be up to the parents who would go.
Adam_Da_Egret@reddit
Yes dear I know you want your mummy but I’ve sent her off to war so you’re stuck with me for the foreseeable future
CourseCold9487@reddit
No. Women can currently serve in all front lines roles in the military.
PuzzledAd4865@reddit (OP)
True, but women can also serve in the Ukrainian military, but they have only conscripted men, ditto in quite a few other countries like South Korea, Singapore etc. so one doesn’t necessarily follow the other.
Tay74@reddit
Those countries also still have quite patriarchal, conservative views on women for the most part, of which one of the benefits for women tends to be not being conscripted
That said I think the far more likely scenario is that the UK would do everything in it's power to avoid conscription. Forced soldiers rarely equal good soldiers, and it's hard to imagine a situation where we'd end up forced into the sort of meat grinder war where you just need bodies that is happening between Ukraine and Russia
JohnnyButtocks@reddit
The reason Ukraine has only conscripted men is because their society, like ours, is much more comfortable forcing men to fight and die. There would be intense resistance to conscripting women and girls. In the kind of desperate situation where Britain reinstated conscription, I’m pretty confident they’d make the same calculation.
Takver_@reddit
I think it might have to do with the generational trauma and knowledge of what the red army did to women, and what the Russian army does to the women they encounter in Ukraine today. Men can't be impregnated by their rapists.
seven-cents@reddit
Also, men can't bear children. Women are far more valuable when it comes to repopulation after war. The men die, the women bear new life. Sending all of the women to fight and die would mean there aren't enough mothers to produce new people.
Uh oh, I'm going to get slapped down in minutes for saying this..
D0wnInAlbion@reddit
You're going to be slapped down because people who make this theoretical point can't provide a historical examples of a monogamous becoming polygamous due to losses sustained in war.
In reality, more women go through life without a partner which is better than being shot but does nothing to contribute to the birth rate.
Bugibom@reddit
This argument is just used to justify valuing men's live less than women's there is no realistic explanation for this. According to how societ behaves healthiest regrowth will happen if male and female population is equally lost or gained.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
Yeah exactly. It’s a bizarre point based on science and histories for dummies.
seven-cents@reddit
Yep, women can give birth to 1 child a year on average, while men can theoretically impregnate 1000's of women a year.
We haven't reached the next stage of world war yet... I hope we never do
D0wnInAlbion@reddit
If some nuclear apocalypse occurred like you're hinting at, there's no benefit to the nation state being able to repopulate as society won't exist. Also, a nuclear bomb doesn't just kill soldiers so it would be irrelevant if women were conscripted or not.
seven-cents@reddit
Considering the state of the planet that might not be such a terrible thing.. wipe the slate clean and start again from scratch 💀
Spiderinahumansuit@reddit
Uh oh, I'm going to get slapped down in minutes for saying this..
Probably because reducing people to their reproductive utility is kind of inhumane.
No_Bullfrog_6474@reddit
i mean, is it more inhumane to see a woman as a womb or as a weapon? everyone is just a body when it comes to conscription, either a body that is disposable and can fight or one that can’t. and yes, potentially a body that can help repopulate the nation to replace the faceless numbers that were, likely unwillingly, sacrificed. i agree that it’s inhumane to reduce women to baby-making machines, of course it is (i say this as someone with the ability to get pregnant who deeply hopes never to do so), but so is forcing them to put their lives at risk as if they mean nothing. there is no humane answer in this conversation.
Tay74@reddit
Tbf, so is war and conscription
seven-cents@reddit
There's a bit more nuance to it all spiderman..
corobo@reddit
Go to war and die for land you'll never own and then some other bloke who somehow didn't die is gonna shag your wife to replace you
Sounds like a great deal haha
seven-cents@reddit
It's the way it's always been..
It's also why invading armies often use rape as a weapon of war.
Ultimately the strongest will prevail.
People forget that humans are animals.
Amazing animals, capable of incredible achievements, love, kindness and cooperation..
However we're apex predators.
Violent, aggressive, cruel. It's built into our DNA
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
What a sad view of humanity.
Sure it’s sometimes true, but humanity is capable of being much more than that.
C2H5OHNightSwimming@reddit
Where have you been for the last few years? There are several active genocides happening and no one gives a shit to intervene, including by one country that's allegedly a Western ally. Are we trying to stop that? Nope, we're letting a civilian population starve while making bank selling them weapons.
I used to be quite idealistic and believed most of my life that people were basically good, and that although history is full of terrible things, ultimately we were progressing as a species on an upward trajectory. Think from too much Star Trek. Since Gaza, and the rise Trump and Reform, I don't believe any of that anymore. There are a few good people but most of us are just lazy, stupid, manipulable and selfish, including myself. The fact that we sat by and watched an entire population get starved to death and did nothing, we should have been screaming in the streets.
I used to look at what happened in WWII, in Bosnia, in Rwanda, and think "how was this possible?" Now I look at these and think how was it ever avoidable, that's apparently just what we're like. Bloodthirsty or selfish and apathetic are the defining features of most humans.
seven-cents@reddit
Realistic
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
I think so? There’s plenty of historical examples of relatively peaceful societies.
The worst times also bear witness incredible acts if kindness, selflessness and generosity.
seven-cents@reddit
Look, I know I'm being a bit cynical, and I truly wish we lived in utopia (or at least an equitable society)
Peace works when there is equality and enough to go around.
It works when there is empathy and kindness, and discipline. Self discipline and fairness.
This is not reality and it never has been. There have always been bullies, and those who seek power. All the way from the local bridge club to the highest offices in politics.
Greed. It all comes down to greed. It's never going to change, it's human nature.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
Greed, compassion, kindness are all human nature.
I think it’s easy to get caught up in being a cynic. Humanity is a spectrum.
seven-cents@reddit
Indeed, I believe I made that clear in my previous comment.
Unfortunately the current state of the world is in a terrible shape. It's utterly fucked up.
What I'm doing about it is to volunteer my time for an education charity in my town. That's as much as I can do right now.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
Fair enough, I think I have too, but I’ll say it one more time to be safe. I don’t deny humanity can be greedy violent bullies, but it’s not all they are, even when times are bad. People vary, it’s a spectrum.
Good for you! Seriously.
There’s been a lot of points in history where people thought the world was ending. We’re still here.
seven-cents@reddit
Yes. However, don't kid yourself. It's about to get much worse again before it gets better.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
I guess we’ll see!
Affectionate-Bus4123@reddit
Typically the actual % of the population who die in war is not that high.
For instance, in Ukraine and Russia, about 0.3% and 0.2% have been killed in combat respectively.
The really high rates of population destruction are related to genocide or civilian casualties in a real total war - for instance the saturation / thermal bombing of European and Asian cities in ww2.
For this it doesn't matter if you have been conscripted or not. Indeed, maybe better to increase your army strength by any means to discourage your opponent from start a war.
InvertedDinoSpore@reddit
Personally am v supportive of women's rights, fair treatment etc but would absolutely not feel OK with them being conscripted to the front line it just feels morally wrong
IllPen8707@reddit
You're getting downvoted here but most people agree with you - they're just less honest with themselves about it than you are
JohnnyButtocks@reddit
Well I feel the same way about men, but I know what you mean.
98f00b2@reddit
Finland also has universal male conscription (though with a civilian service alternative). There's been talk of making it gender-neutral, but it's not really seen as practical since there isn't capacity to start training twice as many recruits. It also helps to compensate for the tenancy for women to lose more working life to parental leave.
Sweden and Norway are gender-neutral, but only take a fraction of the eligible cohort and so don't have this issue.
AnnelieSierra@reddit
In Finland the military service is voluntary for women. Suprisingly many young women choose it.
aiwg@reddit
Service during peacetime is very different to war.
WillBots@reddit
Probably more to do with the fact that they want to do their bit. The Scandinavian countries are a bit more holistic in their view of what is a good thing to do.
BreadOddity@reddit
Somehow I can't imagine women chomping at the bit to be conscripted if it came to it. Most equality measures come about due to advocacy from the relevant groups.
98f00b2@reddit
At least in Norway where it's semi-voluntary (they only select a certain number of those called up, so tend to prioritise those that want to be there), Wikipedia claims that a quarter of conscripts are women.
BreadOddity@reddit
I think if conscription came in there would definitely be a lot of politics in play.
I think Conservative traditionalists and larfe swathes of the media would throw a fit about "sending our girls off to die". Gender roles are still very much alive in popular consciousness. Ultimately I feel our government would go.with their minimal backlash option.
Dietcokeisgod@reddit
To be fair Ukraine is in the middle of an invasion. They can't conscript both sexes in war time - who would look after the children? In peacetime it makes more sense to do both sexes, like Israel does.
HawkProfessional8863@reddit
thank you for the nightmares ill now be having tonight
silvermantella@reddit
It wasn't even male only in ww2, so no.
justinhammerpants@reddit
I think they should be. That’s how it is in Norway (we have national service), and the year I turned 18 was the first where conscription became mandatory for both genders, so it’s been that way since 2007. It means they really get to pick the cream of the crop (and alas I was not the cream and didn’t get in. Still bitter)
clip75@reddit
Any scenario under which conscription would return to the UK would have to be such an existential dire emergency that it would be absolutely everyone. We would have to be talking to the level of an alien invasion. Anything in between probably up to the level of a general conventional war with China would probably still be on the level of volunteers only, making any gender split irrelevant.
If the United States isn't going to conscript women, very unlikely that Britain would.
Let's say in 20 years time some huge Chinese robot army attacks Britain, I think it would go down the lines of all the men get conscripted and all the women do all the essential jobs that the men did - infrastructyre and building weapons and uniforms mainly. If it came down to the last throw of the dice and Britain was facing extermination - then you might see women conscripted. Anything else would likely see a surrender or ceasefire long before that.
Alarming_Finish814@reddit
I don't think they would.
There is very little precedent.
I don't mean to come across as misogynistic but women would be needed on the home front.
WaitinglistHate@reddit
Of course it would be
JackRPD28@reddit
More madness from UK. The last thing UK needs is a world war to really hammer the nail in its coffin. Conscription is only being talked about because war is coming. God save the UK from the storm that’s enveloping it.
Fit_Manufacturer4568@reddit
It will effectively only apply to some of the working class. There will be get outs due to being in education, University, and on religious grounds.
Then again they will need to build a hell of a lot of prisons for people ignoring it.
Burnandcount@reddit
If it is, women will no longer have the vote once hostilities conclude.
Otherwise_Craft9003@reddit
Well obviously women can operate a lot of modern equipment
Probably future will see large scale drone wars which will need pilots
Fragile_reddit_mods@reddit
Yeah probably
spamalt98@reddit
It has to be both right? In this day and age of equality, it would be a massive slap in the face to men and women if it wasn't.
TimeNew2108@reddit
We wanted equal rights we shouldn't complain if we get them. I imagine there would be a massive increase in births from people trying to avoid it.
chaos_jj_3@reddit
We forget that women were conscripted in World War 2. And that they essentially conscripted themselves in World War 1. So, yes.
aiwg@reddit
Not in combat roles though. Having your life on the line is very different.
littletorreira@reddit
Lots of conscripted men weren't in combat roles either. The armed forces need plenty of roles to fight a war, many will be nowhere near the front line.
aiwg@reddit
Yes, elderly and disabled men. Not fighting age men.
No_Bullfrog_6474@reddit
i used to know someone who was a fit and healthy 19 year old man when wwii broke out and so, naturally, was conscripted - but he never had to fight.
littletorreira@reddit
This guy really is thick. There are so many non-front line jobs in a war that conscripted men did. Then there were other skills needed that men signed up to do rather than be conscripted, like mechanics or logistics.
aiwg@reddit
Because you're arguing a point i never made.
I said "women were never forced into frontline combat unlike men", and your response is "actually some men delivered the mail and cooked" when i never said they didn't.
littletorreira@reddit
No. I am arguing the exact point you made. I said there are many positions that conscripts will do that are not front line combat. You then said only a small number and they were or will be disabled or elderly men. This is just patently false. 30-35% of British armed forces members didn't go overseas to fight on the front lines during WWII. One third is not a small number. Yes even more men didn't get conscripted because of age or importance of their jobs. My own grandfather was too old so joined the fire brigade.
chaos_jj_3@reddit
So you've clearly never heard of Alan Turing.
aiwg@reddit
Because he was of better use at home. That's not the case for most.
all men aged 18-41 were required to join except those medically unfit, working in key industries, and certain occupations like farming, medicine, and engineering.
chaos_jj_3@reddit
Yes but the point you're not getting here is that not every conscripted man saw combat, especially during WW2. You could be conscripted as a doctor, a radio technician, an intelligence officer, a logistics coordinator, a chef, etc.
aiwg@reddit
What have i said that contradicts that? You're arguing with something I never said.
littletorreira@reddit
No. Literally many many men. Mechanics, cooks, delivery men, there were men who worked in the offices of general. There are myriad jobs in an army that are no front line soldiers, sailors or airmen.
foxhill_matt@reddit
'Both' genders?
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
Yes, both biological genders. Both of them.
foxhill_matt@reddit
I think you mean sex. Gender isn't based on biological anything.
Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit
They won’t want ill people like you either.
foxhill_matt@reddit
Oh no! However will I cope!
Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit
Basic anatomy would be a start.
foxhill_matt@reddit
How would that help me cope with not being conscripted?
Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit
Baseline IQ requirement for combat roles 😂
foxhill_matt@reddit
You seem to be avoiding the question. Are you ok?
Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit
Try avoiding this question. What is a woman?
foxhill_matt@reddit
Ah one of those people who responds to a question with a question. I knew it! 1-0 to me :D
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
Sorry, but despite all new uses of the language, gender is still a synonym of sex.
TheUnicornRevolution@reddit
Silly goose, you can't use language (defined by opinion) as proof of what anything actually is.
Well, of course, you can. But not if you want to make a valid argument of course :)
budgefrankly@reddit
People can be born with XX, XY, XXY and X-only chromosomes; though the latter two are rare.
Scientifically, there’s always been more than two sexes
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
I don’t think those variations have any bearing on what the original question was about. Their question was clear and there was no need for any "um actually".
budgefrankly@reddit
The "'both'" genders question, and "yes, 'both' biological genders retort" clearly were in relation to the idea of their being two "biological" genders
(and a transparent effort to divert everything into culture-war nonsense (as I suspect, was OP, frankly))
My response was to correct a false statement: that scientifically there are not just two "biological" sexes (or genders if you prefer).
It was on-topic for this thread in this post.
If every correction can be hand-waved away as an unnecessary and unwanted "um, actually", then that's just an excuse for insisting we should all tolerate endless bullshit, for fear we might hurt bullshitters' feelings.
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
I don’t care.
budgefrankly@reddit
And that's why you're so ignorant.
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
Not ignorant, just honest. Being blunt is one of my biggest flaws. For clarity, I believe people can identify as however they feel. I just disagree with people shoehorning gender ideology where it isn’t warranted, just like I'm sick of seeing "Free Palestine" in music subs.
budgefrankly@reddit
Palestine. Ideology? You're a right proper, self-important muppet.
It's a regularly observed fact, not ideology, that not all people fall into an XX or XY chromosome categories, and thus it's a fact that by most biological measures there are not two sexes.
If
PresidentPopcorn@reddit
I didn’t re-read your reply before I replied and I've slept since then. Not sure there was any need for name calling.
GreenLab6369@reddit
I don’t see why women should have to fight in a war AND make the people who fight in said war/replace the ones who die. We do enough.
panguy87@reddit
No
Ill-Apartment7457@reddit
If total war broke out, I think it’s very unlikely they would be conscripted. There would need to be some semblance of normality/structure at home for families, businesses and the war effort at home to continue etc. logistically it would be easiest for the government to enforce it via gender. They would be allowed to volunteer I expect. And honestly if you’re fighting a brutal war I think from a purely genetic standpoint a government would want more men fighting.
MoonlitEarthWanderer@reddit
No, but it wouldn't work. A lot of us (I think a survey found at least half) would refuse and accept the consequences.
Helpful-Fennel-7468@reddit
Todays lot can hardly sign on let alone be called up 😂
Substantial_Quit3637@reddit
0_o its not conscription if your society turns into a Starship troopers/Helldivers esque Military state.
IllPen8707@reddit
I don't think it would extend to women. Not because there's no place for them (logistics, drone pilots, etc) but because it would be political suicide. It doesn't matter what rational or moral arguments you make - you're going to get a lot less backlash conscripting men
pishfingers@reddit
A more interesting question is if it would include Scotland. It didn’t include NI last time, and I doubt they would include it if doing it again. But independentism is much stronger in Scotland now than in the 50s and something like conscription is the kind of thing to push it over the edge
RemarkableFormal4635@reddit
Maybe not exclusively but it would be predominantly male. A: you can't just conscript the whole population or the country will shut down, B: call me a misogynist but on average/generally men will be more aggressive and stronger for fighting purposes.
Ben_jah_min@reddit
Fuck no, all the “don’t need a man to do that…” squad would be at the front of the queue… /s
FoxedforLife@reddit
British women were conscripted during WW2, so why wouldn't they be conscripted in the future?
The applicable question might be whether or not women would be forced into front line combat roles, in any future war/emergency. Not that keeping someone out of such roles would guarantee their survival...
Shadowholme@reddit
Probably.
If conscription ever becomes necessary again, it will be in defence of our way of life. Which would mean that we are looking at a *massive* loss of life, and a need for repopulation afterwards.
Like it or not, biology dictates that for survival, women are more necessary than men when it comes to repopulation. One man can impregnate hundreds of women in a year (or it can be done *without* men these days), but each woman can only carry one pregnancy per year.
It doesn't matter what you feel about gender equality and how 'unfair' it is that men have to go and die protecting the women - nature doesn't agree. If things go to shit to that degree, we are going to need more women to survive than men.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
If things are going that shit then I don’t think the government will be as concerned with repopulating as you might think in the nuclear age!
If it’s not then well, polygamy didn’t because a massive thing to repopulate after WW1 or WW2 so frankly I’m not sure this holds up. Don’t think it’s worth basing policy on anyway. I can see modern western states going the way of Norway.
securinight@reddit
Women are allowed to join up and do all roles now. It would be weird if they changed it at a time when things got so bad you have to re-introduce conscription.
NotASexJoke@reddit
can and forced to are two very different things. Given there is already some unease in bits of society towards allowing women into combat roles there would certainly be open hostility to forcing women into the military.
Tricky-Objective-787@reddit
To be fair there’s now plenty of unease about forcing men off to war too.
Hopefully it never comes to conscription being necessary. If it does I don’t think any option will be without significant controversy.
securinight@reddit
Without knowing exactly what conscription would entail, it's hard to judge. People may be forced to sign up, but could have some input into what they actually do. If people don't want to be a soldier, but are happy to be the cook, then it's easier just to let them.
Or it could be straight up forced in and handed a gun.
I'd imagine that if you want to sell conscription to a population, then you have to soften it significantly.
aiwg@reddit
If people were allowed to pick, we'd have way too many cooks in the kitchen.
ViSaph@reddit
Women were conscripted in vast quantities during world war 2 though so we have a historical precedent for doing it when times get tough. My great grandma served with the Women's Auxiliary Air Force. She served on RAF bases for the entire war.
I think they would conscript women, however, them going into combat roles would be voluntary. The majority of military roles are part of the support chain and non combatant, and those roles are absolutely vital in times of war because without them people go hungry, wounds go untreated, and people die.
Motherofvampires@reddit
Childless British women were conscripted in WW2 so there isn't any reason why it wouldn't happen again, as there is that precedent.
ClockOwn6363@reddit
It's always been men in the past, I think its only fair women go next time.
BusyBeeBridgette@reddit
I doubt we would go the conscription route. The Falklands is stark evidence that a professional army beats a conscripted one. However, if we did, I am sure it would be for both men and women. Many women serve already. My aunt was in the Navy for 15 years.
my11fe@reddit
It should not be, As it will show that the uk is still not got equal rights for everyone.
Everyone should be part of fighting or helping.
Those who are seeking jobs for more than 3 months should be the 1st to go.
Andagonism@reddit
I want to flip this, but if both genders go to war, who is going to work on the farms, work in the factories etc?
The women in WW2, played a fantastic role in helping the UK, the UK would not have won the war, without them. Whether it was the Land girls on the farms or those working in factories.
If men and women were conscripted and we went to war, who would look after the children? Dont get me wrong, both parents can parent, but both parents cannot go to war, so who decides if it's him or her?
Who would feed the UK by working on the farms? The conscientious objectors? The elderly? Children? the Disabled?
Again who decides who stays and works and who goes? Would it be like US Vietnam war, where born on certain dates are picked? rather than everyone
No-Strike-4560@reddit
It would have to be both male and female if there was ever another conscription, as that is rightfully an instant equality legal dispute otherwise.
ViSaph@reddit
We already were in great quantities during world war two, so in a similar situation? Yes absolutely I think we would be.
Would women be forced to serve in combat roles is a more apt question because there is still a lot of resistance to that to this day.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-vital-role-of-women-in-the-second-world-war
My great grandma served in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force and was proud to have served her country.
Ok_Mark9169@reddit
I haven’t seen one comment pointing out the obvious yet, that female combatants are far more likely than their male counterparts to be subjected to rape. This is apparently the main reservation for women being conscripted. I think it far more likely that childless women be called up to auxiliary roles as per WWI and WWII.
SuomiBob@reddit
My wife is Finnish, I’ve also lived there, they have mandatory military (or civic for conscientious objectors) service. Many members of our family have done it and have all said it was a net positive experience on their lives. They learned survival skills, practical life skills and made friends for life.
Of course there’s a serious defence meaning behind the practice but I don’t think it’s automatically a terrible idea. However I’m reticent to support it in this country because I’m in my thirties so it would be unfair of me to impose on younger people.
Princ3Ch4rming@reddit
Conscription is very unlikely to happen because the nuclear deterrent exists. Any situation that would have called for it (either to defend borders or fight a ground-war in a foreign country) would more likely be a fight for air and naval superiority to allow for targeted airstrikes, blockades and tactical nuclear weapons.
That being said, I expect we will likely find the various military branches and intelligence services offering greater benefits to prospective service people and a lot more targeted advertising toward the demographics they are looking for. Could be things like recruitment drives for the army all the way up to Cicada 3301 style puzzles for cryptographic and intelligence services.
Lost_Ninja@reddit
If we were actually in an active war, I suspect that it would be a male only conscription, but women would be combatants and able to enlist. It means that the government would still get plenty of female volunteers but not be seen as forcing women to fight. People including people of conscription age are still needed to help run the country, and just like in WW2 younger women will probably be expected to step up into those roles.
If instead of an active war it were more akin to National Service, I would imagine that it would not be gendered and everyone over a certain age would be called up.
_ThePancake_@reddit
Eh probably not.
But I do think the role you would get would vary depending on your size and strength, and not gender. If you can't make the cut for the physical, you might end up a cook or on medical... which would inevitably mean that MOST men would be in roles that require more strength, with a few female exceptions, and MOST women would be in roles that require other skills, with a few male exceptions.
But these days, we're not wielding swords, we fire guns. Your aim, cunning, stealth and intelligence is arguably more important these days than brute strength.
Librabee@reddit
I'd just identify as not eligible. Sorted.
Sufficient-Egg9524@reddit
I think both genders would be conscripted (maybe in slightly different ways) however what greatly concerns me about the potential of this is what happens to people who are disabled/mentally ill/neurodivergent.
pjc50@reddit
Previous conscription has had health requirements.
Sufficient-Egg9524@reddit
read what u/Sufficient-Egg9524 stated
Fibro-Mite@reddit
Depends entirely on the disability, mental illness or neurodivergence and how it manifests. Some of each are more than capable of serving in the various armed forced in both combat and support roles. It's not all forced marches with 40kg packs or lying in the mud waiting for the enemy. Anyone who is unable to meet the criteria, mental or physical, is more of a hindrance than help and would not be permitted to serve in combat, even if they volunteered.
Sufficient-Egg9524@reddit
IN UK people with disabilities are not allowed to serve in military, period. That's what I was told when I said I would have quite liked to have served in a technical role.
Sheetz_Wawa_Market32@reddit
The is no country in the world with gender-neutral conscription.
Yes, this includes Israel, which only conscripts women in theory (it’s very easy to get out of, but only for women, making military service essentially voluntary for women) and never for combat roles (women have to jump through all sorts of hoops to volunteer for combat roles.)
MelloCookiejar@reddit
Women are likely to be included for things that don't require carrying heavy loads. An obvious physical limitation.
MelloCookiejar@reddit
Women are likely to be included for things that don't require carrying heavy loads. An obvious physical limitation.
ValidGarry@reddit
It won't be. It's a terrible wasteful system.
Unit_2097@reddit
And really ineffective compared to professional soldiers.
DazzleLove@reddit
I think that both would be but probably along the lines of the Israeli army‘s national service. So in our conscripts, women could choose to serve front line but wouldn’t be made to.
WeirdLight9452@reddit
It would probably be both, but let’s face it, conscription won’t happen because too many young people will just refuse and there won’t be enough space in prison. Saying this as one of said young people, why should we fight just so rich men can swing their metaphorical willies around?
Fun-Department3533@reddit
Right now with all this gender confusion I don't think it would really matter, considering you can identify as a Russian attack helicopter and people have to believe you and call you it.
TheUnicornRevolution@reddit
Sigh. Another person who didn't read the essay or understand it.
deadblankspacehole@reddit
For combat roles?
Absolutely not
TemporaryLucky3637@reddit
I also think the bigger issue would be what percentage of our country is physically/ mentally fit enough for combat. Imagine all the unfit teens and 20 somethings with vape induced popcorn lung on the front lines. Imagine what percentage of young people wouldn’t be cleared to use guns due to poor mental health on their medical history. 😅
holdawayt@reddit
I think they'd have to really. They'd be criticised either way, but given equality laws now, they'd have to offer it out to everybody I'd have thought.
Helenarth@reddit
Is conscription really something that's "offered out"?
holdawayt@reddit
Poor choice of words, I think it would be compulsory for everyone. Not just young lads.
GuideOptima@reddit
I think women have fought very hard for their right to be conscripted alongside men.
Nooms88@reddit
It's very rare for countries which have mandatory service to require women to be I serve, I think just Israel and Norway?
But male mandatory service is pretty common. Even in ukraine they haven't mandated it for women.
The usual thinking is to just expand the pool amongst men, lower the age to 16, even 14 and push the upper bounds into the 60s.
If you're struggling anyway it's probably ggs.
I don't think we will even mandate women
secretvictorian@reddit
No, it wasn't in WWii, no reason to thinking would be male only if it ever came round again.
Ivetafox@reddit
I do think it would be all genders but I don’t think it would be equal unless it was a specific age (for example 18-19 year olds only). I’m a big fan of conscription, Norway does it routinely and I think it gives young people a bunch of skills that are useful in life. I’m not suggesting we throw them into active combat but learning medical skills, logistics, leadership etc is very valuable and having an entire population trained can only be a good thing!
wildskipper@reddit
Conscription would only be used in times of dire need, so in such an extreme situation yes women would be needed as well. The reality is that a modern war likely wouldn't need conscription because we wouldn't be facing invasion.
If talking national service, then also yes because surely modern national service wouldn't just be about the military anyway, but also other public services (like the NHS). That's how it is in some countries.
Terrible-Head6168@reddit
Both sexes would get conscripted
If you’re under 40 and you voted in the warmonger party guess what?
Masterful_Touch@reddit
Absolutely.
I’m not sure what I would be defending if you’re going to put the people I care the most about on the front lines. That sounds incredibly counter-productive, and a really poor move from a national reproduction standpoint too.
riscos3@reddit
No... it will be men and transwomen.
AdAggressive9224@reddit
Its the official policy of Norway today, females would be conscripted in such a scenario.
The reality is if course, we're a highly developed democratic nation, with a nuclear deterrent which prioritises homeland defense. For things to get so bad as for conscription to be necessary, strategically speaking this debate would be entirely irrelevant as we would likely be fighting in a style similar to that of the French resistance, which did of course include women.
But government would already be pretty much out of the fight before conscription was really on the cards, and an invasion would already be happening.
Slow-Race9106@reddit
No
After-Dentist-2480@reddit
If it wasn’t, there’s a massive sex discrimination case waiting to be brought…
PuzzledAd4865@reddit (OP)
Well as power is so centralised to Parliament, if a government wanted to bring forward legislation to amend the Equality Act to make a special exemption for conscription that would presumably be fairly straightforward.
TellMeItsN0tTrue@reddit
Possibly also just apply the current exemption for certain job roles being limited to one sex? Schedule 9 of the Equality Act.
leninzen@reddit
I don't think it ever will, and whilst I understand the world has changed, I don't think women would be. At least not in front line combat roles.
You've got to remember that society needs to carry on after war is over. Women ended up being extremely important in the rebuilding of the Soviet Union after WW2 for an example, and took on typically "male" roles, because of the sheer amount of casualties they suffered
If pretty much everyone of a fit and healthy working/fighting age was called up, you're just opening yourself up to societal collapse in my view
YchYFi@reddit
It'd probably be both but a lot of people won't qualify.
afcote1@reddit
Yes for combat, no in other roles
quadrifoglio-verde1@reddit
I think this is correct. Anyone can cook, clean, move stuff, drive vehicles etc, ie. facilitate the professional soldiers doing the fighting.
Over_Caffeinated_One@reddit
The Current tooth-to-tail ratio is somewhere around 3 combatants to 7 support, and even then, with what we have seen in Ukraine, those combatant roles need not necessarily require you to be present.
TheWishDragon@reddit
I think they would recruit regardless of gender tbh.
ninjomat@reddit
I feel like there’s a ton of military recruiting adverts targeted heavily at women the last few years.
Would be weird if conscription then ignored them.
cnbcwatcher@reddit
I think it would be male only for combat but all other roles could be offered to both men and women
rhweir@reddit
should be restricted to 50 years plus red faced tory guys
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/PuzzledAd4865! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!