(CMV) There's no reason why male-only mandatory conscription is not sexist

KPplumbingBob · 2025-06-12T06:44:42+00:00

It is the biggest case of discrimination based on sex that you can think of in the modern world. Can anybody even imagine a law that forces women to serve, fight, kill other humans and die but men get to be free and get to not do any of that? Simply based on genitals and nothing else. It is unthinkable. Even in highly developed countries that have "gender equality act" male only conscription is considered to be "not discriminatory". You would think they would at least try to make an actual case but nope, it's as simple as that. We consider it to be not discriminatory against men, simples. Oh, and the whole trans thing suddenly goes out of the window when it comes to this topic.

The fact that there is even a discussion on whether or not is it sexist tells you absolutely everything you need to know. My country is now bringing back mandatory military service and their wording is "women are free to join!". They are concerned about being perceived as sexist by making it male only. As in, forcing men based on gender is not sexist but not giving women an option to serve would be. It is fucked beyond belief.

MonkeyCartridge · 2025-06-12T06:33:11+00:00

Justifications tend to be based on gender roles, with the idea being "things are too dire to stick to equality."

I mean cool I guess, but there are TONS of traditional roles women could fill in a draft condition. So they could still make it mandatory and then make the training gendered if that's really what they want.

Impossible_Serve7405 · 2025-06-12T06:32:58+00:00

I remember seeing a stupid comment saying: "Men start wars and expect us to fight in them" as if this fool was acting like most men either had nothing to do with the war or even actively opposed it. Almost as if they're too out of their mind to realize that even men get screwed over by those in power.

2025-06-12T15:18:07+00:00

It's honestly quite funny how easily so many people who see themselves as righteous allies for equality toss their deeply held principles they spew every day on social media out the window when it comes to this stuff.

I remember back before I left twitter there was "male loneliness epidemic/misandry" discourse of the week going on and conscription was one of the points being made about how, obviously, the system targets men specifically in certain ways.

And so many people were just like "lol when the last time the draft was implemented!? Lol loser incels need better arguments!"

This wasn't very long ago. And it just showed the ass of so many people I followed that I largely respected.

For one, you can tell it was a deeply American point of view, considering Ukraine has been implementing the draft for how long now due to the ongoing war with Russia?

For two, just because America hasn't done it in decades....how does that negate the wider point that it is sex based discrimination targeting men?

And considering how bad things are going with the American regime, suddenly the idea of "the draft won't ever happen again" seems bit less believable.

And how much of the villainization and victimization of immigrants in America right now is fueled by male-specific fears and stereotypes of criminals?

What's even funnier is that people, in all seriousness, play the "the draft is actually misogynist" card.

Talk about childish. "What, are women to fragile to be forced into military service to kill and die for our country!"

These aren't serious people.

vegetables-10000 · 2025-06-13T08:26:24+00:00

a) "Women give birth, men do military service, everyone has their role". That's bullshit. Women are not forced to have children nowadays. Men on the other hand are very much coerced to do military service.

The Feminists will always result back to gender roles when it's convenient.

b) "Women would get sexually harassed in the military", and weaker males get horribly bullied in the military but nobody seems to care.

Men lives don't matter to them.

c) "Women have periods", are women equal to men or not?

Oh so now it's ok to blame periods lol.

Btw great post OP. I'm just replying to these quotes you pointed out.

2025-06-12T06:15:19+00:00

I actually think making women have to sign up for the draft would indirectly ban the draft.

That's why politicians don't make women have to sign up, because without able bodied men or women, the country suffers.

In WW2, when all the men were conscripted that were able bodied, women took up the jobs, and without women being there to work, this country could not have another draft.

So, the people who think the draft are stupid are indirectly defending it by not making women have to sign up as well.

Popular-Kiwi7920 · 2025-06-15T14:28:28+00:00

Bigger question. Is all sexism bad?

Yea it is sexist to only force males into the military. But it also works better. Im fine with that.

MrHackebiff · 2025-06-23T17:48:45+00:00

As somebody from a country with mandatory military service solely for men I would like to argue that a big reason why many countries have male only conscription isn't exactly sexist, it's mathematical. As morbid as it sounds, men are just biologically more expandable. One man can father tens of kids at once but a woman has to carry it for nine months. If a war was to break out and a big part of the population would perish a nation simply need women more to rebuild.

Otherwise-Cat2309 · 2025-10-27T12:35:06+00:00

There’s no reason for mandatory military service to ever exist?

KBA3AP · 2025-06-12T06:52:30+00:00

Why do you think country without mandatory service is not possible? Lets be clear, only reason coscription exists is to provide cheap cannon fodder. Lets take Russia, one year of service for every fit male. What that gives is - big mobilization potential of severely undertrained soldiers.

Problems with it: 1) Logistics being unable to support that many active soldiers - more money required.

2) Equipment required to be effective on modern battlefield makes point of them being cheap less enticing.

3) Undertrained soldiers suffer higher casualties, and are less efficient, which further hinders logistics and INCREASES costs (paying benefits to family, caring for wounded, morale)

4) Not mobilised people have lost a year of their youth. Economic costs (they dont pay taxes, they actually cost money to train), social costs. And thats a lot of people (essentially all fit men, while ones possible to mobilize are a fraction)

5) Not only they are undertrained, they are all trained DIFFERENTLY, as warfare and tech evolves in time between their end of training and possible deployment. Can be fixed, still costs money.

TL/DR: conscription is outdated for reality of modern warfare, look at current conflicts - extensive training, good equipment, efficient logistics, morale of proffessional army > raw numbers of conscripted.

Wadeem53 · 2025-06-12T09:40:06+00:00

It shouldn't exist for anyone though ...

Edit: bro you are literally from Greece, why tf does Greece need conscription???

Cantankerous_Tank · 2025-06-12T06:01:44+00:00

(Bah, guy I was replying to deleted their comment before I could reply. Ah well, I'll post mine anyway.)

As long as people like Moscow's Temu Hitler exist, national self-defense based on antimilitarism IS building a better world. Outright pacifism only invites war when you're constantly under threat of invasion by some Dollar Store Stalin.

I will say though, it's weird that we think that, instead of panic building an army when an invasion is already in progress, we need to prepare men for war well in advance during peacetime when we can take our time with the training. But somehow it's ok to leave women completely unprepared. It's like we're collectively going "Who cares? They don't need to know how to operate in a warzone, they're bulletproof! Lets just assign and train them for their wartime duties during wartime." Apparently forming and executing a plan in a panic rush is a-ok but only if we're talking about women and their role during a war. Kinda sexist tbh.

BurstSwag · 2025-06-12T06:48:39+00:00

Regarding point b. I might be out over my skis, but if militaries were closer to 50-50, wouldn't we see sexual assault rates by men against women begin to approximate the civilian rates?

If there's more women around, I would imagine the sexual assault rates would be lower than when there is a largely male group with a few women in it.

Master-Eggplant-6634 · 2025-06-12T15:14:10+00:00

its because the standards would have to be lowered massively. Have you ever ran in mix gender platoon vs a male only platoon? its not the same man. I went to a male only bootcamp, male only SOI, male only mos class. our PTs were horrid compared to when i went to the fleet in a mix gender platoon.

Saltylight220 · 2025-06-15T01:46:24+00:00

It's sexist by Leftist standards, but we all understand it's the only correct way, if we do required service.

Men are made to sacrifice, to take physical burden. It's shameful to ask a woman to fight for you.

ghandibondage · 2025-06-16T17:12:40+00:00

So fight the draft! I swear this sub is designed to stop people from doing anything.

easymanwer · 2025-09-24T09:22:27+00:00

I agree. Men's conscription is outdated and can be seen as Sexism Against Men and Boys. Also, men too get sexually harassed in the military, but the higher ups barely acknowledge those male victims and male survivors. These can only make men's mental health or men's health worse. Male only conscription only enforces Sexist Against Men and Boys.

jlphoenix9 · 2026-01-18T04:17:04+00:00

It's literally the male version of the hand maid's tale but normalized. Swap child production for sacrificial beast of burden/cannon fodder

Main-Tiger8537 · 2025-06-12T08:58:54+00:00

denmark will conscript women "watch news" and is now one of 9 out of +180 to do so...

Codexe- · 2025-06-14T04:57:13+00:00

I think you're being short sighted, and you have tunnel vision. You're only looking at yourself. You're not looking at anybody else involved in the setting.

leanbwekfast2 · 2025-06-15T08:40:03+00:00

I think the best argument against conscripting women is that they are simply on average less effective in combat roles and are of better value elsewhere. Be that in non-combat roles, or just remaining in their civilian work.

Also, workplaces are biased against hiring young women because of the risk that they won’t stick around for long, due to possible maternity leave. So, by conscripting young men, this kind of balances out that injustice.

Alcuperone · 2025-06-16T11:09:55+00:00

It is sexist, yes. It is discrimination based on gender, literally textbook definition of sexism. But I'm not sure it is unequivocally the wrong choice.

It is an undeniable fact that a state needs to be able to defend its sovereignty. Not every state can afford to do so using strictly professional soldiers, so conscription is a tool used to fill that gap. It's not a good tool, but when the other option is "just lose", anything better than that will do. Another undeniable fact is that war fucking sucks. It sucks real bad, and the loss of life it creates is of tragic proportions. This loss of life, looking at the bigger picture of the state's survival, is a predictor of horrible outcomes, one of which is economic stagnation or, worse, recession, which means that the quality of life for everyone goes wayyyy down.

In terms of increasing the population (leaving immigration out of it for now), it's not the number of men that's the bottleneck. It's the number of women. So, it stands to reason that if life must be lost, for the long-term preservation of the state it is better if the life lost is primarily men rather than women. It's not a nice way to look at things, but such is the reality of thinking bigger than the individual.

So, that is why the value of men's lives, on paper, as far as the state's long-term survival post-war is concerned, is lesser than the value of women's lives. Of course, that equation is muuuuuuuch more complicated than that within our modern understanding of things, but that's the general gist. Perhaps if we needed to install a system to deal with these issues today, given what society broadly respects as facts of life, it would be different. However, the current system has been grandfathered in and changing it would require a metric fucton of political will.

Granted, does anything I outlined above necessarily mean only men should be conscripted? Of course not. There are plenty of roles within the military that pose minimal danger to one's life or none at all, so if minimising the loss of the lives of women was the singular necessary evil, women should be able to fulfill those roles. However, ask yourself - would it truly matter? Or would it simply move the goalpost? Would it help create equality or would it just change the conversation to "women get all the cushy jobs without any danger and men are the ones sent to die"? Would it make you feel any better knowing that women are also getting their lives upended and forced to (safely) serve their country, while your friends, brothers, sons, fathers are most definitely going to get hurt while being forced to serve instead of possibly lucking out and driving trucks far far away from any fighting? I don't think I would. And making any such changes to the conscription process is so unpopular in most cases that trying to do so is borderline political career suicide. Whereas, for the reasons I outlined above, I don't think we're realistically going to get to a point where men and women are treated perfectly equally in terms of conscriptions, and that's before you get into the other very simple and pragmatic aspects of it (soldiering is a very physical job, and testosterone is a hell of a drug). So, what's the point of touching it? People's feelings? When it comes to the question of a state's survival, people's feelings are not a priority.

In summary, it sucks really fucking bad. But what's the other option?

shinn497 · 2025-06-12T16:30:35+00:00

Men are physically better than women pn average and are needed for yhe more dangerous combat roles that are harder to recruit for.

Now officially the US military will allow women in combat roles, if they pass the physical standards,.which are the same for men and women. A d barely any pass and move on to combat.

Right now the army has 3.8% of its combat troops to be women. The marines 2.3%. And the Rangers. .2%

In the case of a large scale war, would it make sense to ask.millions of women to attempt and fail training for a small increase in forces? I don't think so. Now theu can be conscripted for support roles , but those are not necessarily ones that are hard to recruit for.

Personally I think conscription should never happen, even in a large scale war. But that is me.

Title	(CMV) There's no reason why male-only mandatory conscription is not sexist
Author	ParticularDentist349
Upvotes	242
Comments	60
Date	June 11, 2025 4:07 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1l8wm7z/cmv_theres_no_reason_why_maleonly_mandatory/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/cmv-theres-no-reason-why-male-only-mandatory.1554551 https://theredarchive.com/post/1554551

Comments