×

50
51

legal rightsThoughts on conscription (self.LeftWingMaleAdvocates)

submitted by NimishApteleft-wing male advocate

What are your thoughts on conscription and compulsory military service? Do you believe it's justified or not? I believe that conscription under any circumstances is slavery. But what are your thoughts?

View Poll

all 86 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]RestoringStatsGuy 76 points77 points  (13 children)

Rule 1 - There should not be mandatory conscription. Rule 2 - If there ABSOLUTELY HAS to be conscription, it should be gender neutral. Rule 3 - If lost/confused, refer to Rules 1-2.

[–]tipying_mistakesleft-wing male advocate 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Precisely my thoughts

[–]SarcasticAndSmartGuy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's how I see the issue, too.

[–]Unit_08 4 points5 points  (10 children)

I'm conflicted about neutral conscription. If women are conscripted, they will almost certainly be in non-combat roles. That leaves more men available to be in combat. If only men are conscripted, men will have to fill those non-combat roles.

I'm not sure how it would play out in real life. Whatever option saves the most male lives would be preferable.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Whatever option saves most lives would be preferable. I don't want females to die any more than I want males to die.

[–]Unit_08 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Women are almost always protected in wars. I'm worried about protecting the most vulnerable people.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

You should've made that as obvious as possible from the start. If feminists show up on this sub and see your first comment without the added context, you can be sure that's not gonna help us, and to be frank, even I was kind of getting the wrong idea when I first read it.

[–]Unit_08 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Should I add on "and also woman" onto any statement about helping men out of fear that a hypothetical feminist will see it and think I hate women? This is a subreddit for men's issues and I was talking about helping men. I don't want to do "what about the women" here.

[–]FightOrFreight 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're not wrong, but perhaps you could have conveyed this by saying something like "whatever most reduces the excess risks for men"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. That's a perfect way to put it. It's not like women are completely shielded from the horrors of war anyway, so he could have just said human lives regardless

[–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"Noncombat" roles can become combat roles if things go wrong, and they very frequently go wrong. Either you expand the field of recruits to include everyone, thus taking the best soldiers from every group, or you keep it to just men, needing to dip deeper into the pool of men to keep the same size army, and diluting your army with soldiers you wouldn't otherwise take.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In real life it will just be ignored.

Ukraine is doing that right now.

As is the US (most likely anyway, I haven't researched this).

In theory they're in violation of a human rights treaty they signed decades ago but I've seen very little effort to try and hold them accountable.

[–]PsychoPhilosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If we play it by the rules of "exceptional circumstances" it almost always works better to have more support.

For a definition of exceptional circumstances, conscription must only be used alongside the forcible nationalisation of land and other assets as useful to the war effort.

If it's not worth pissing off the rich, it's not worth pissing on the poor.

[–]FightOrFreight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very, very good point. Either fully gender-neutral conscription, or none at all.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 28 points29 points  (20 children)

I hope that anyone who votes the first option will see themselves out...

[–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Or more hopefully see themselves in to change their views.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 14 points15 points  (1 child)

True, you've got a point there.

[–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I hope those that can be convinced of a more egalitarian world are convinced, and those that won't be convinced piss off.

[–]MasterOfChaos6 comment score below threshold-11 points-10 points  (16 children)

I voted for the first option. I believe that conscription should only be a thing if we are being invaded, however when that happens, it should be male only, with females being optional.

Why? Because men are better at war; we are physically and mentally more capable at waging war. If I ever get in a combat situation, I wouldn’t want to rely on a 120lb woman to back me up.

So maybe woman should only be allowed if they pass the same physical requirements as a man.

[–]KBA3AP 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Filtering by these standards is flawed.

Why are men inherently better? You would be far better with average woman than with (under 100lb at average height) me, for example.

If you want to include physical fitness in that, then why not take everyone who passes?

But one more point - if country is invaded and its country worth fighting for/enemy wants genocide - then there would be so much volunteers that you'd run out of guns to hand them. You'd have them even before the invasion - just pay people for that.

And if country has government that is dictatorial piece of shit no one likes - no conscription would help anything except to massacre a lot of people on both sides.

[–]18Apollo18 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I believe that conscription should only be a thing if we are being invaded

Why does that matter?

Why should men have to stay behind while adult women are allowed to flee??

Those who want to leave the country should have the right to.

Those who want to stay and fight should stay and fight.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Apparently according to UN rights documents, this is illegal. See the discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BestPractice4MR/comments/ub3q4f/the_30_articles_of_the_universal_declaration_of/

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I voted for the last option, but I agree with you to an extent. The fewer people are forced to go to war, the better. If that means only the physically strongest have to be drafted, then it's still better than sending pretty much every healthy adult.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points  (3 children)

This is sexist.

There certainly are women that are physically more capable than me. It's a nonsense argument.

Just give everyone a physical, and select the ones that fit the requirements (which obviously should be the same).

Besides, do you really want to force people who do not want to fight for their country to do so against their will? And give them guns? What could possibly go wrong?

It's incredibly short-sighted, and unjust.

[–]schmadimax 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is exactly – the part about forcing to fight – what happened with Russia, it became so blatantly obvious that many of the soldiers were forced to go to Ukraine when whole battalions decided to lay down their arms and get captured by the Ukrainian defence forces without any resistance.

[–]MasterOfChaos6 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Bro, the physical requirements for women is less than that of a man to join the military, in the US at least, idk about other countries. This is dumb af, only men should be required if it’s an emergency. And the requirements should be the same for everyone.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know. The requirements should obviously be the same.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what, next we force women to have children? If your country, most likely people will sign up in droves to fight, if not, then your country isn't worth fighting for.

[–]DumbWhore4 0 points1 point  (5 children)

How are women less mentally capable than men?

[–]MasterOfChaos6 0 points1 point  (4 children)

“At waging war”
I mean that men are more violent.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Congrats at perpetrating stereotypes

[–]MasterOfChaos6 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It’s not a stereotype if it’s a biological fact that on average men are more ruthless. We have much higher testosterone levels.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here we go again

[–]DingyWarehouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sending men into war isn't a biological fact, it's a mindset where you think men should be slaves to the state. There's no need to deliberately confuse biological fact with social conditioning.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I'm under the "conscription is justifiable under exceptional circumstances" but it needs to be gender neutral at all times.

For example, Alien invasions. Or existential threats where anyone and everyone is required to fight to try and save as many people as humanly possible.

Short of, say, your country being locked down by another country or surrounded on all sides with no escape possible, I'm against conscription.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I so agree with you

    [–]Kozure_Ookami 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Problem is, the country could fall within days without a mandatory military service at dire situations. No country would certainly fall in such a short period of time if it's just women stop having kids.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]BloomingBrains 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      What if it wasn't misandrist?

      [–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 13 points14 points  (4 children)

      International courts have decided that involuntary conscription is a human rights violation.

      Specifically through the mechanism of "conscientious objectors". It's considered an issue of religious freedom (where religion legally can mean your personal thoughts and convictions).

      So if you're a conscientious objector and you get drafted you in theory have some sort of avenue to sue the state under existing human rights treaties that your country is likely a part of.

      [–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      International court rulings are non binding. So that's practically useless.

      [–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Yeah that seems to be a pretty big issue.

      [–]SamaelET 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The issue is that I doubt you can sue in countries like Ukraine. You would get shamed to death.

      [–]FightOrFreight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      International courts have decided that involuntary conscription is a human rights violation.

      Can you provide a source for this?

      [–]gratis_eekhoorn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      The only justifiable conscription in my opinion is a gender neutral conscription by a country in a defensive war.

      [–]BloomingBrains 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Let me put it this way. If I lived in Ukraine right now, I would be fighting the Russians to defend my home. However, I would want to do so knowing that women were also putting their lives on the line to defend the country because they see my life as equally valuable to theirs. Conscription can be justified if its to defend your country's soil, but they should absolutely take equal numbers of women, and I don't believe in war for frivolous reasons.

      [–]Motanul_Negru 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Huh, I'm part of the plurality for a change?

      Training is one thing (I mean, we have compulsory schooling and that's pretty based and necessary, all things considered) but forcing people to fight and/ or work for the state is an idea that belongs to the bad old days when the king owned everything and everyone in his realm (notionally at least).

      We do not need those times ever again, and we do not need this disgusting relic of them.

      Putin wouldn't have been able to occupy fucking Chernobyl if he didn't have his big horde of slave soldiers, rounded up and driven by his slaver-soldiers who imo are hypocrites for not carrying whips.

      [–]ObserverBlueleft-wing male advocate 12 points13 points  (3 children)

      I consider conscription, necessary or not, to be exploitation. When it involves combat, we are not talking about a casually unpleasant job or a minor inconvenience. It's about putting a person's well being and life in harm's way.

      The people who agree with it are not justified in wanting others to be subjected to it as well...

      [–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      There was interesting amendment called the Ludlow Amendment. It's writer wanted to include a clause saying that anyone who votes on yes on war has to go to war. Read it. It's rather interesting.

      [–]ObserverBlueleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Thank you. I had heard of that amendment before, but I didn't know its name.

      [–]beeen_there 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      With war cheerleader journos in the front line. That may ground a few hawks.

      [–]PhilosopherHistorian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Even in times where it seems necessary, conscription is merely a form of slavery. It doesn’t matter what gender(s) it applies to.

      [–]NightWolfYT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Forcing me to fight for a government I hate, to die in a country that is not my own, away from my wife and kids, in a war I never supported, should 100% be illegal.

      [–]JACCO2008 2 points3 points  (4 children)

      When the Covenant invade and start wrecking our shit we will need a draft to slow them down for 30 years in the hope that we can capture a leader and negotiate an end to their crusade against us. That said, it should be gender neutral and everyone regardless of what reproductive organs they have should be given the honor of being brutally slaughtered equally.

      Short of that, mandatory military service can be beneficial for society as it provides a common experience that acts as a kind of social glue. It also provides a good foundation for entering the job market. We see this in Israel and it seems to work reasonably well. They also draft everyone though, including women.

      I'd say that my opinion is that if you are going to do it, do it to everyone without exception. If someone is unfit for "normal" duty then you find a place to put them for their term. If you aren't willing or able to do so, then stay away from it completely unless the Covenant show up.

      [–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      Short of that, mandatory military service can be beneficial for society as it provides a common experience that acts as a kind of social glue.

      The same idea can be achieved without mandatory military service if you allow for other types of service and exalt the military less.

      We see this in Israel and it seems to work reasonably well.

      Israel is hardly a country I'd look to for a cohesive society. They're an apartheid state, first off.

      They also draft everyone though, including women.

      Don't they draft women for a shorter amount of time?

      [–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I don't think Israel's an apartheid State. There's a lot of discrimination against Palestinians which needs to be condemned but apartheid is a bit of a stretch.

      [–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      It's a judgement call for sure. It's been called that by several people and organizations I'd consider to have expertise in the issue, like Amnesty International and the Israeli human rights groups Yesh Din and B'tselem.

      [–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      There's a famous book written by some kind of ex politician / political theorist that called it an apartheid. Like in the title of the book itself.

      [–]ItsVinn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I strongly despise being forced to serve in the military. I am not willing to serve for a country that I cannot even agree with their politics.

      In our country, we used to have mandatory military training for college men (and later with women), and to be honest, they got cancelled because one guy got murdered after Calling out the corruption in the program. Some here think the military will discipline their child— which is absolutely not.

      Forced military service is a violation of human rights and I will never wish to have anyone be forced to be in the military. It should always be a choice. No one should be jailed for refusing to join the military.

      [–]b1rtb0i 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Singaporean here that just finished National Service in the Singapore army. I see it as necessary if a country has a significantly smaller population than other nations. There were times in the past when the countries surrounding us tried some funny shit (Look up Konfrontasi or when they tried to do a large scale military exercise with live rounds on our border) National Service also helped to create a unique Singaporean identity among a society that was very divided over race. But it’s in a much better state now even though there is still racism.

      That being said, it should be gender neutral. Under the current system, males only have to be conscripted while women could go off to uni or whatever. This was done in the 1960s to ensure that there was a workforce because our economy was weak. Now, since the economy is strong, they should make women serve. The societal divide between men and women is frankly worsened because most couples would break up and the guys constantly have to go through this Shit. In my platoon in boot camp, I saw multiple couples break up over text and 90% of the time it was the girl dumping them.

      Now, women should only be able to serve in support roles which can help solve the manpower issue. That being said, they should be allowed to serve in the combat vocations if they can hit the physical standards. Failing to do so can damage combat effectiveness.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I sincerily hope those 14 people, who voted in favor of male only conscription were trolls.

      [–]Razorbladekandyfan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      NEVER male only conscription. Never!

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      It is literally slavery, conditional sure. Just because your willing to fight for this country in emergency situations doesn't give you the right to force others. However the state believes it has the right to your life and death for its own cause.

      It would be "nice" if our country actually held to its principles. However this requires a lot of work and restructuring many things towards already existing goals. Decentralization, to create a bottom up form of Government. Your mayor/town council should be your "president" the federal government should be nothing more than an agency used for communication between local Governments.

      It's not that the military is wholly unnecessary, however it should not be under the federal government. Rather any national military should be a conglomeration of localized militaries for organizing against threats that 1 local government would be unable to handle. This goes for many other things, the FBI and other federal agencies are good ideas with poor execution. It's fairly obvious that we exist in an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a form of democracy in which the "elite" are given more political power. Democracy is a fairly generic concept that covers quite a lot of ground.

      Personally I don't see any rational, moral option other than to push for libertarian socialism. Taxes need to be addressed to become willing contracts, you want to use the road? Pay the "taxes" otherwise you don't own a part of it, it's not yours.

      I am pro philanthropy however you don't get to decide where my money goes, there's also the issue of our privately owned things are often not truly privately owned and why do I not own my labor and work? Why is it that our current system pushes and enforces company theft from the very employees that they say are part of the company?

      I'm tired of all the weaseling done by the "right" and "left" to protect authoritarianism and corruption. We would also have to revamp our education systems to address how stupid and dependent on faith the majority of our species has become. If you can't explain in an objective fashion why your right then shut up, you may be "right" however that has little to nothing to do with you. Your likely to espouse counterproductive nonsense.

      Reality is based on process, nothing is the exact same, this is why math is so incredibly important. It gives us a way of creating abstractions, of quantitating a defined property according to its relative measurement unit, a scalar. A set or group of an object when combine with a set of an object creates a set of an object and an object a.k.a the short way of saying it 1+1=2.

      [–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Please break that up into paragraphs to make it more easily readable.

      [–]SandyV2 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      I have no objection to compulsory military service in times of major war. How the US handles selective service registration these days I think is perfectly reasonable, except for it being male only. Having the protocols and mechanisms in place before they're needed is always a good idea, and its damn easy to register, so make it gender neutral and I think it's perfectly fine.

      [–]18Apollo18 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      Why should you be forced to serve the government against your will?

      Why should you be forced to die for a cause your don't believe in?

      [–]fuckoffyoudipshit -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      I would argue it's part of the social contract. If you look at Israel or to a lesser degree Finnland a strong military isn't a luxury, it's vital for the continued existence of that society.

      I think that a professional military is preferable to a conscript military both performance wise and certainly morally but there are circumstances in which such considerations are overshadowed by an otherwise overwhelming threat. I understand and in principle I agree with you but personally I'm a realist in the end.

      [–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      It's one thing to demand your labour and wealth, it's another thing to demand your life. The first is justifiable, the second one is crossing a line.

      [–]fuckoffyoudipshit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I absolutely agree in principle but the fact is the axis powers would not have been defeated had the Allied countries not drafted tens of millions of people. It sucks yes and yes the draft primarily (if not exclusively) hits the poor and disadvantaged. I'm not denying that but when you're faced with a threat that shares none of these moral qualms sticking to your guns is self defeating.

      [–]18Apollo18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I would argue it's part of the social contract

      The thing about contracts is you have to fucking consent to them

      [–]zonadedesconforto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I’d pretty much end compulsory military service and put some kind of social/environmental work in place. It would benefit both society and youth (regardless of gender) way more than military training.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      In times of war all people should be trained to fight and defend themselves. However, in the end the only people you want fighting are those that want to and can. Considering my country has spent a lot of time and money scooping up people who fled wars I think any citizen of my country has the right to flee this country also.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      If it has to be done, make it gender neutral and also send the politicians to the front lines, so they can see first-hand what their decisions have cost.

      [–]alialahmad1997 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      There should be consription to both gender but combat roles should be based on ability so basically mostly men

      [–]Mammoth_Salt_4509 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I am torn apart on this matter.

      On one hand, military conscription goes against my deepest beliefs about human rights. I can never justify it morally. (That's why I voted the last option).

      On the other hand, from a military point of view, it's a common tool for quickly building up an army. Strategically, it wouldn't make any sense for a country (e.g. Ukraine) not to adopt it, considering its widespread support worldwide.