×

158
159

social issuesLatvia prepares for mandatory conscription of women (self.LeftWingMaleAdvocates)

submitted by blackmamba4554

https://bnn-news.com/latvia-prepares-for-mandatory-conscription-of-women-into-the-armed-forces-271593

I believe that military service must be voluntary for all genders. But if governments insist that this is a "civic duty", it also must be for all genders.

At least this step makes Latvia fair minded, unlike many other self-proclaimed progressive countries with male only conscription.

all 55 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]jlphoenix9 43 points44 points  (3 children)

When is this happening to finland, according to some international report they have the highest gender equality for women, have a previous woman pm in recent times but still male only conscription

[–]jacobelmosehjordsvar 20 points21 points  (2 children)

That's profoundly contradictory - there is no such thing as gender equality for women.

[–]SnooBeans6591 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Well, almost all metrics for "gender equality" measure "gender equality for women," which means they don't see discrimination of men as a negative, and only care about what affects women.

I suppose "pro-female bias" would be more appropriate than saying "gender equality" for these.

[–]jacobelmosehjordsvar 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes. Gender equality can't be women's advocacy. The entire scheme doesn't make any sense, except for the convenience of using women's grievances as a political battering ram. The sentiment does not care about women, but about the group possessing the "revolutionary energy". It's straight up Herbert Marcuse.

[–]sunyata150 26 points27 points  (5 children)

I am not in favor of conscription not just because I consider it a human rights violation but also because even if we conscript both men and woman I don't trust the government and military to put both men and woman into equally risky positions. I would be willing to bet woman would be placed in roles such as drone piloting or base mechanics while men are still overwhelmingly put on the front lines and as a result making up the majority of deaths. It might be well intention ed but unless I see woman also being placed in equally risky roles alongside men it doesn't mean a lot to me.

[–]The-Author 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I would be willing to bet woman would placed in roles such as drone piloting, base engineers etc while men are still overwhelmingly put on the front lines and as a result making up the majority of deaths.

I'm pretty sure that's also how it happens in Israel. They also recruit both genders, but men generally get sent to the front lines while women usually do support and logistics roles.

[–]Consistent_Seat2676 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Apparently these days 20% of Israeli combat soldiers are female, compared to 5% in 2014. Here’s a pretty detailed article https://www.timesofisrael.com/lacking-haredi-manpower-idf-turns-to-womanpower-1-in-5-fighters-are-now-female/

[–]BurstSwag 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Murdering civilians is a great opportunity for gender equality, who would've thought.

[–]SnooBeans6591 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Yes, that would just make it more likely for men to go to the front, as the safe spots get taken by women.

[–]sunyata150 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Exactly!

[–]_WutzInAName_ 58 points59 points  (2 children)

Wow, it’s nice to see that Latvia values gender equality and fairness.

[–]The-Author 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It is. Now, they just need to work on valuing bodily autonomy by not forcing people to fight against their will.

[–]TheSpaceDuck 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is a matter of valuing gender equality as much as it is Latvia being a country with less than 2 million people that has a very aggressive neighbour with 143 million people. Literally every man and woman counts for them.

Don't get me wrong, progress and a precedent for fairness are a good thing even if the need wasn't fairness. What remains to be seen (same with Denmark) is whether this will translate with actual equal respect for human life, or rather a "men go to the frontlines, women go to support roles" situation.

[–]MathematicianNext132 26 points27 points  (3 children)

Feminists must really love this because they want equal oppurtinities for women and they want equal treatment. Good to see that Latvia is breaking the glass cealing for the battlefield. 

[–]MasterpieceNew7000 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yea, feminists would agree, or they would say "women shouldn't be conscripted but also men shouldn't be conscripted". Funny how I see both opinions here, and then you continue to bash feminism

Let me ask, is it the more feminist party that's in power right now in Latvia

Edit: yea the progressives which are generally feminist are in power. Oh, and male only conscription was added two years ago when the conservative parties, that generally support "traditional family values" which I would consider to be not feminist, were in power

[–]Adventurous_Design73 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Feminism does not care about men dying or being drafted. If women must be drafted for drafting to stop they wouldn't do it.

[–]OnenutFellow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're right

[–]Lanavis13 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Good

[–]Different-Product-91 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I am so glad that Latvian females can enjoy full equality now! Congrats, girls! You deserve it!

[–]JuicyJibJab 20 points21 points  (13 children)

This is definitely some r/OprhanCrushingMachine material. This is nothing to celebrate about. Conscription is a human rights abuse, and imo we shouldn't tolerate it in any form.

[–]jlphoenix9 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Selective equality is the worse form of human rights abuse.. if everyone goes through the same thing, then in majority of the cases the abuse will lessen since everyone will voice out to improve the system. It's by design. Every inequality you see from autocratic imposition to tyranny by voting majority has this in common- some groups have to privilege to be exempt from the same burden. You name it - black slavery, enthic majority to voter demographics to impose on minority. Only universal application has highest likelihiod of bringing about utilitarian max agreement/max happiness for better outcomes for all.

[–]Lanavis13 29 points30 points  (5 children)

Better to tolerate equality than inequality if cruelty will occur regardless. Makes it more likely that for said cruelty to be removed one day if it affects everyone equally. Plus, lbr conscription will never go away because all sustainable countries know it's necessary if they don't get enough volunteers for their wars (whether it's a just war or not).

[–]jlphoenix9 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Conscription is just another form of taxation.. and if a country needs corvee tax to survive against a gargantuan neighbour, why not? Everyone closed their eyes when only males get taxed for decades anyway

[–]mcampbell42 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Exactly cause if you paid your army enough you wouldn’t need conscription. Or you would have some system that allowed people to learn the basic training on weekends. A Fulltime conscription army is just a way to get free labor for multiple years out of mostly men

[–]jlphoenix9 0 points1 point  (1 child)

First, you need to consider a country’s rivals. Countries with overwhelming population superiority can potentially pursue both options - your suggestion or conscription. For countries with smaller populations, conscription is the only viable approach. Paying more per soldier means less money is available for top-quality gear per soldier, weapons platforms - ships, tanks, drones, missiles, and other resource stockpiles. If you want to utilize the full strength of the citizenry, conscription is definitely cheaper overall: 100,000 soldiers at conscript pay versus the same 100,000 fully paid at market rates. In both cases, you still need to feed and house them.

[–]mcampbell42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conscription overwhelming effects men, they entirely pay the “tax” that is conscription. If you look at Singapore as a good example, women typically have better career trajectories cause they have 2 more years working experience then men. It creates a massive imbalance in society. There is no free lunch by just paying people less

[–]TheSpaceDuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is happening because of Russia, and if you've seen any news from Ukraine in the past couple years you'd know that "not conscripting" doesn't mean you won't be brutally killed and/or tortured.

I agree with you when it comes to offensive wars, but defensive wars are rarely a matter of choice.

[–]TheProuDog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would prefer no mandatory conscription of anyone, so I see nothing to celebrate here. Especially considering Latvia borders Russia. I understand that they need more possible soldiers and manpower since there is no guarantee that NATO alliance can come to their aid in time, but the equality in other countries should be reached by removing such mandatory things instead of forcing them on everyone

[–]ohheyaine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Conscription is bad for either gender.

[–]AgentKenji8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conscription is a last resort to defend one's way of life. Is it horrible? Sure. Equality dictates that all must do no less to defend their lives of those they cherish, who can't defend themselves, land and resources.

[–][deleted] comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points  (3 children)

How about not doing wars ?

[–]MelissaMirantileft-wing male advocate 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Not exactly possible with Russia in your hemisphere.

[–]Lanavis13 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Wars have been, can be, and will be necessary. To believe or act otherwise is naive at best. Since wars will keep being necessary so will conscription if there is not enough volunteers. Due to that, the only equal and the most just thing is for all sexes to be equally susceptible to conscription.

[–]Snoo_78037 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think conscription should exist at all. Maybe countries will think twice about starting dumb wars, knowing they are risking their women's lives aswell.

[–]ExternalGreen6826feminist guest comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points  (17 children)

Can’t we just end conscription for everybody?? No “left winger” should be celebrating this

[–]ChewBaka12 12 points13 points  (3 children)

A step forward is a step forward. War is bad, conscription is bad, but if it's going to happen then at least let it happen equally.

I'm not celebrating, but I do think this is a good change. Obviously, no conscription would be a better change but that's not what's happening.

[–]ExternalGreen6826feminist guest -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

You would rather have more people die to own women in the opression Olympics? You are no different then certain women who cheer at lowering body image for men using the same logic

[–]ChewBaka12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the state needs 500k soldiers they will conscript 500k people. Just because they doubled the amount of people they draw from doesnt mean they double the amount of people they'll recruit.

Just because you're arguing in bad faith doesnt mean others are

[–]Jacolai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything spoken through the feminist lenses are usually right away Moot and redundant to me. Sorry lol

[–]1bnna2bnna3bnna 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Really? I think you need to update your definition of the 'left', in addition to your definition of 'equality'. If equality is to be defined as equity, but only when it suits you (e.g., when your neighbour isn't a psychopath and you are a female) then I have a few questions for you about the very concept of "human" rights. Any Marxist would surely appriciate that material concerns are the appropriate focus?

[–]helloiseeyou2020 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Obviously that is the actual goal. However, the world is the closest to true world war posturing it has been since the 60s.

If it is conscription for all or conscription for men only, in a time of saber rattling, there is very obviously only one pro-equality move.

Fuck the military industrial complex. That being said you can't expect another generation of men to be culled by war for "the greater good" and then start talking about equality.

Also I hate to say it, but women being on the draft is far more likely to lead to the end of the draft than status quo. If your country didn't release men from the draft after WW2, it isn't going to happen ever.

[–]ExternalGreen6826feminist guest 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don’t want more men going to war and I think everyone including men should actively fight against it

[–]helloiseeyou2020 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fully agree. But let's discuss in realistic terms: If war breaks out with this new Axis 2.0 that is forming, do you actually believe that the draft won't be activated?

There has never been any urgency whatsoever to eliminate the draft. Not after WW2, nor the incredibly unpopular Vietnam campaign, and not even after the USSR collapsed and decades of solidified homefront peace ensued.

Ask yourself why that is. (The answer is because they can get away with it, because no one cares, because it affects only men.)

If a major war breaks out, the draft will be activated.

I should also point to the history books and identify that even nationa that do not have the draft, like Canada, were both willing and able to pivot on their heels and enforce conscription at a moment's notice when WW1 and WW2 broke out. This means rhere are absolutely no guarantees of safety with or without a formal draft.

What is going to change these factors when decades of peace have not?

[–]Nathan_6767 2 points3 points  (2 children)

People are not gonna fight to end conscription unless women are included in it. Due to gynocentrism

[–]ExternalGreen6826feminist guest -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Our society is definitely not gynocentric and even if it was the war logic of state and capital would supersede any concerns with women’s welfare The state and capital are more then willing to put more bodies on the chopping block

[–]Nathan_6767 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Our society is definitely most certainly gynocentric. We’d get more people fighting against it if women were on the line too. Which would increase the chances of ending it. Way more people will care. As for the other stuff that you said. Even if they are true(which would make fighting to end conscription pointless ). The true equality stance is to either have both or neither. Society is gonna care about ending conscription if women were included

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MasterpieceNew7000 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Canada doesn't have conscription for anyone and it's all volunteer. Honestly the best system

    [–]Glad-Way-637 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Meh, equality is equality. Hot take: better everyone is treated badly than only certain people being treated badly due to their genitals. Ending conscription entirely will be far too hard of a sell for most governments, maybe this will at least ease some of the burden disproportionately placed onto men in that country.