National Service and Equality
Discussion
But was watching you tube and got a recommendation on countries with national service and was surprised France is thinking of bringing it back,then found many EU countries still do national service
Switzerland
All able-bodied Swiss men are called up to do military service from the age of 19.
Denmark
obligatory service is limited to men and lasts from four months to a year. Women are able to volunteer to serve on the same terms as men.
Estonia
Mandatory military service in Estonia for male citizens lasts from eight to 11 months.
Finland
Every male Finnish citizen aged between 18 and 60 must do military service, after completion of which they are registered as a Finnish Defence Forces reserve.
Lithuania
Males aged 18 to 23 can be called to serve for the duration of nine months.
Cyprus
14 months in National Guard for males aged 18-50
Greece
9-12 months for males aged 19-45
So what happened to equality, why are there no protests that women also aren't called up for national service?
Norway and Sweden also have National Sevice according to my search, but for both men and women.
Also
I find it kind of of interesting how few women are in the war in Ukraine. Even watching the medics, transport and catering being carried out it is all men doing the work. One would have thought their would be a scattering of women at least. There was Florence Nightingale in 1950 something so where are they now?
Thought i get the above in as it is something I though about, Not a rant, just interested.
Israel's national service is mandatory for all (except when the public are expressing their views on judicial reform apparently, which is the subject for another thread) and they have a long memory. I had a friend with dual nationality who went awol on his National Service. Some 15 or so years later, if not more, he was hitched up with a UK national woman and they were exploring emigrating to Israel. They went to the embassy to explore relocation options and needs and everything was nicey nicey till they came to leave the embassy. He was tapped on the shoulder and invited into a small room, where it was explained to him that should he be serious about "coming home" then he should plan on completing his service.
National Service is expensive.
It takes keen, enthusiastic (and cheaper) workers out of the workforce and may not train them up to do anything useful afterwards.
It depends upon
How long is it for?
What is expected of you?
Is it seen to be fair in allocation of duties/experiences? – see below….
And today - just how equal is it?
It would be interesting to hear from non-UK people as to how they found it- if they did it.
Slightly O/T
My dad did National Service. He was hoping to go into the RAF, he went into the Army.
Once there, he was hoping to work on tanks or some such. Basically, he spent nearly 2 years in Germany peeling spuds and carrots, and some very minor messing about in a left-over American half-track.
His mates did similar, including some who were shot at wherever they were.
Like most things British, there’s always a well-connected someone who got an easy ride – one of his group from school went to British Honduras/Belize on an RAF base, having an “ordering paper clips” and “cocktails at 6” existence. His mummy wasn’t having her little boy doing anything dangerous, so used a family contact extremely high up in the RAF to fix it for them.
It takes keen, enthusiastic (and cheaper) workers out of the workforce and may not train them up to do anything useful afterwards.
It depends upon
How long is it for?
What is expected of you?
Is it seen to be fair in allocation of duties/experiences? – see below….
And today - just how equal is it?
It would be interesting to hear from non-UK people as to how they found it- if they did it.
Slightly O/T
My dad did National Service. He was hoping to go into the RAF, he went into the Army.
Once there, he was hoping to work on tanks or some such. Basically, he spent nearly 2 years in Germany peeling spuds and carrots, and some very minor messing about in a left-over American half-track.
His mates did similar, including some who were shot at wherever they were.
Like most things British, there’s always a well-connected someone who got an easy ride – one of his group from school went to British Honduras/Belize on an RAF base, having an “ordering paper clips” and “cocktails at 6” existence. His mummy wasn’t having her little boy doing anything dangerous, so used a family contact extremely high up in the RAF to fix it for them.
Oliver Hardy said:
I find it kind of of interesting how few women are in the war in Ukraine. Even watching the medics, transport and catering being carried out it is all men doing the work. One would have thought their would be a scattering of women at least. There was Florence Nightingale in 1950 something so where are they now?
Thought i get the above in as it is something I though about, Not a rant, just interested.
There are over 60,000 women serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the moment - mostly in the very medic, transport, catering (plus administration, training and other support) roles that you say is all being done by men. There are about 7000 women in front-line combat units in the Ukrainian Army. Thought i get the above in as it is something I though about, Not a rant, just interested.
Plus the untold number of other women in Ukraine doing some sort of 'national service' (as in 'service to the nation') in civilian roles behind the front line - often doing the roles left by men who have gone to those front lines.
Yes, it’s incredibly sexist. It’s also a fundamental breach of human rights and essential says “your country owns you”.
I don’t want to come over all “mens rights”, but I get very angry at the regular radio adverts about “women and children in Ukraine” and how much danger they are in. Those men fighting mostly did not get a choice.
There is a strong narrative around “male violence” in the media and, rightfully, condemning the violence, but attributing it to something intrinsically “male”. I don’t believe it is intrinsic, but social, and the continuation of things like national service and the lower value of mens lives are fundamentally linked to this.
I don’t want to come over all “mens rights”, but I get very angry at the regular radio adverts about “women and children in Ukraine” and how much danger they are in. Those men fighting mostly did not get a choice.
There is a strong narrative around “male violence” in the media and, rightfully, condemning the violence, but attributing it to something intrinsically “male”. I don’t believe it is intrinsic, but social, and the continuation of things like national service and the lower value of mens lives are fundamentally linked to this.
2xChevrons said:
There are over 60,000 women serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the moment - mostly in the very medic, transport, catering (plus administration, training and other support) roles that you say is all being done by men. There are about 7000 women in front-line combat units in the Ukrainian Army.
Plus the untold number of other women in Ukraine doing some sort of 'national service' (as in 'service to the nation') in civilian roles behind the front line - often doing the roles left by men who have gone to those front lines.
Out of 700,000. There are some, but it is tiny, and they have all chosen to, unlike many of the men.Plus the untold number of other women in Ukraine doing some sort of 'national service' (as in 'service to the nation') in civilian roles behind the front line - often doing the roles left by men who have gone to those front lines.
Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 29th March 13:22
2xChevrons said:
There are over 60,000 women serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the moment - mostly in the very medic, transport, catering (plus administration, training and other support) roles that you say is all being done by men. There are about 7000 women in front-line combat units in the Ukrainian Army.
Plus the untold number of other women in Ukraine doing some sort of 'national service' (as in 'service to the nation') in civilian roles behind the front line - often doing the roles left by men who have gone to those front lines.
...plus the woman who shouted "Fake" at Putin's staged visit to Mariupol.Plus the untold number of other women in Ukraine doing some sort of 'national service' (as in 'service to the nation') in civilian roles behind the front line - often doing the roles left by men who have gone to those front lines.
Electro1980 said:
Out of 700,000. There are some, but it is tiny, and they have all chosen to, unlike many of the men.
Undeniably it's a tiny proportion. But they do make up a very big portion of the very support roles that the OP has managed to miss them in. Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 29th March 13:22
For the record (and for what it's worth): I am generally against national service/conscription in peacetime for men and women, although I can appreciate the necessity in nations with credible strategic threats like the Baltic states and Israel. But I am very much for gender equality in (voluntary) military service, and if the balloon goes up and conscription is implemented I don't think gender should really come into deciding who is required to answer the call. Equality absolutely cuts both ways.
It's an interesting thought experiment though - let's say that a Western European country gets Russia-d and implements national conscription, with eligibility across the genders. There are reserved occupations, age ranges and medical standards of course. And it's only rational to demand only one draftee from each family unit, otherwise you're creating a massive problem (short and long term) of childcare.You either have to create a national childcare system (run by those otherwise ineligible for war service by dint of age, occupation or medical status?) or let the choice about who goes off to fight and who stays at home go to each family unit.
I bet that, Western social/cultural mores being what they are, you'd still get an overwhelmingly male presence in the military.
I was living in Italy through from mid 70's to mid 80's at a time when national service was still compulsory (for males) and many of my friends did, or tried to find ways to avoid it, pretty much everyone felt it was a waste of time and it wasn't really taken seriously by anyone, merely something that had to be done however, I'm sure countries such as Israel take it much more seriously.
My Dad did it back in the '50s, he loved it and ended up signing on for longer but they were different times.
I don't think it's a good thing in this day and age, surely better to have a professional military.
My Dad did it back in the '50s, he loved it and ended up signing on for longer but they were different times.
I don't think it's a good thing in this day and age, surely better to have a professional military.
2xChevrons said:
Undeniably it's a tiny proportion. But they do make up a very big portion of the very support roles that the OP has managed to miss them in.
For the record (and for what it's worth): I am generally against national service/conscription in peacetime for men and women, although I can appreciate the necessity in nations with credible strategic threats like the Baltic states and Israel. But I am very much for gender equality in (voluntary) military service, and if the balloon goes up and conscription is implemented I don't think gender should really come into deciding who is required to answer the call. Equality absolutely cuts both ways.
It's an interesting thought experiment though - let's say that a Western European country gets Russia-d and implements national conscription, with eligibility across the genders. There are reserved occupations, age ranges and medical standards of course. And it's only rational to demand only one draftee from each family unit, otherwise you're creating a massive problem (short and long term) of childcare.You either have to create a national childcare system (run by those otherwise ineligible for war service by dint of age, occupation or medical status?) or let the choice about who goes off to fight and who stays at home go to each family unit.
I bet that, Western social/cultural mores being what they are, you'd still get an overwhelmingly male presence in the military.
That choice never existed, those men were told “you are not leaving. You are fighting”.For the record (and for what it's worth): I am generally against national service/conscription in peacetime for men and women, although I can appreciate the necessity in nations with credible strategic threats like the Baltic states and Israel. But I am very much for gender equality in (voluntary) military service, and if the balloon goes up and conscription is implemented I don't think gender should really come into deciding who is required to answer the call. Equality absolutely cuts both ways.
It's an interesting thought experiment though - let's say that a Western European country gets Russia-d and implements national conscription, with eligibility across the genders. There are reserved occupations, age ranges and medical standards of course. And it's only rational to demand only one draftee from each family unit, otherwise you're creating a massive problem (short and long term) of childcare.You either have to create a national childcare system (run by those otherwise ineligible for war service by dint of age, occupation or medical status?) or let the choice about who goes off to fight and who stays at home go to each family unit.
I bet that, Western social/cultural mores being what they are, you'd still get an overwhelmingly male presence in the military.
And the numbers involved do not support your argument. 700,000 is less than 2% of the population. You are creating a straw man to justify your sexist belief. There is no reason why it could not be a random draft, with an exemption for childcare where you are the only parent (be that through being a single parent or your partner having been drafted already). The vast majority of parents are over the age of military service anyway. Your system only works if you draft middle aged fathers over younger, fitter women purely because of their gender.
catso said:
I was living in Italy through from mid 70's to mid 80's at a time when national service was still compulsory (for males) and many of my friends did, or tried to find ways to avoid it, pretty much everyone felt it was a waste of time and it wasn't really taken seriously by anyone, merely something that had to be done however, I'm sure countries such as Israel take it much more seriously.
Much like the Italian attitude to tax and government in general.Biggy Stardust said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Imagine reintroducing it here. Oh the outrage.
It's notable that almost all in favour of NS wouldn't be eligible to be conscripted themselves.
Occasionally the subject will do the rounds on my facebook feed, almost everyone speaking out for it is either retired or on disability.If anyone wants to be a soldier in the UK they can either join the normal Army / Navy / RAF or they can follow in the footsteps of the greatest miliary leader of our times (Mark Francois) and join the TA.
Maybe national service should be extended to a include a homeguard (i.e. anyone over 65). it would give them something useful to do instead of spending hours on facebook
Maybe national service should be extended to a include a homeguard (i.e. anyone over 65). it would give them something useful to do instead of spending hours on facebook
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff