Finnish presidential candidate (Social Democrat) doesn't want the army to be mandatory for women because they give birth and are weaker. She's naturally a Feminist and campaigning for equality. According to polls almost no-one is going to vote for her, thank God.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2018-01-27T15:57:11+00:00

Feminism has always been a buffet of progressive and traditional values.

Equal rights? Sure I'll take a plate of that.

Equal obligations? No thank you, let's instead get a scoop of "women are delicate princesses and men are obliged to protect them".

BlueOrange22 · 2018-01-27T17:22:00+00:00

So, she actually says "women are weaker." This is a typical hypocrisy of feminists- they oppose gender roles, except when those gender roles benefit women. They say they oppose all the notions that women are weaker and less capable, but then, openly have a stance that women are weaker when it's convenient. Same goes for laws for recognizing male victims of domestic abuse- feminists get angry at any suggestion that women are weaker and less capable, but then oppose laws giving protection and recognition for male DV victims because they say men don't need them because women are weaker.

The hypocrisy of feminism is ridiculous, and to me one of the many clear indications that the MRM is the more rational and valid side.

sweetpotatocasserole · 2018-01-27T21:19:39+00:00

My husband is from South Korea where they have mandatory military service for men only. He keeps saying he hopes we will have a girl so she doesn't have to serve, as it is a life-sucking experience earning $100/month and sets men two years behind women in their education/careers. Most young women in Korea are not having babies, but even if they were at least it is not compulsory. I feel either everyone should have to serve or it should be voluntary. Those who are unsuited to military roles can be given civil service roles.

2018-01-27T15:30:02+00:00

For her "excuse" can be said that as a Feminist she knows very little about thing like, you know, equality and stuff. It seems that the question surprised her. Apparently she had never thought about the biggest equality problem in Finland: only men are drafted.

Razorbladekandyfan · 2018-01-27T15:32:56+00:00

Thanks for posting this. Its an INCREDIBLY important mra issue.

game_r · 2018-01-27T17:33:55+00:00

Then why are women allowed in the military?

shydude92 · 2018-01-27T20:16:45+00:00

The army should not be mandatory for ANYONE, male or female unless the country is directly at war and national security is under direct threat. Enforcing conscription during peacetime is oppressive, outdated, and contrary to the principles of democracy

2018-01-27T23:10:15+00:00

The military is already voluntary only for women in Finland. Does that mean they’re having a serious push to make conscription gender neutral and she’s opposing it?

DaneWhitman · 2018-01-28T04:32:20+00:00

Norway and Sweden have both required women to serve on the same basis as men in recent years. I wonder what kind of reaction there has been to this (if any) inside Finland. Is the country really that culturally different than its neighbors?

Cristoff13 · 2018-01-28T11:04:58+00:00

Modern armies require many support positions for each front line soldier. There are plenty of support roles women could serve in. So arguing women are unsuited for combat (which I agree with) does not mean they can't be conscripted.

McGauth925 · 2018-01-29T15:11:57+00:00

Once again, the amazing thing about feminism is how it gets away with publicizing HALF of existing sexism. That, my friends, is power - the power to simply keep telling us that women are powerless, despite copious evidence to the contrary, and even when it's feminists being obviously, and completely, sexist.

HelvetinPastori · 2018-01-27T20:04:43+00:00

Well, this explains the spike in the number of visitors to my blog. Naturally, I'm happy to take part in discussion and that's the main reason for starting my blog. That being said, the fact that you're focusing on what Tuula Haatainen said, kinda misses the point of this post.

As I mentioned in the post, I've already done four blog posts regarding this matter, going through pretty much all aspects of the system and pointing out problems with it(links can be found at the end of this one). The idea I had with this post was to take a closer look at the actual discussion surrounding the topic

As I pointed out, every single candidate running in the election is in favor of conscription, just like most of the Finnish public. In other words, the fact that she has very little support doesn't mean anything in this context. I simply chose Sauli Niinistö (a man btw) and Tuula Haatainen as examples because their arguments were some of the worst I've seen used to defend this system.

Now again, I'm happy to take part in the discussion and about the fact that somebody actually is interested in what I have to say. That being said, it's not really beneficial to attack Haatainen for being a self described feminist. The fact is that organizations and people labeling themselves as "feminists" have been some of the most vocal supporters for abolishing this system. This includes some of the organizations supporting the Ohi on-campaign I mentioned.

Here are the links to my previous posts on the matter

http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/absurdity-of-finnish-conscription.html

http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/absurdity-of-finnish-conscription_13.html

http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/finnish-conscription-pt3-militarization.html

http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/12/finnish-conscription-pt4-how-reserve.html

Comments