Gay Forum

Recently, I read a reprint of an article from The Economist, which revealed that European female leaders were more likely to went to war. On average, between 1480 and 1913, states ruled by female leaders were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by male leaders (https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/0 ... -or-queens). Do you remember that B. Obama claimed that if women ran the world, there would be less war?

In most countries of the world, military service is mandatory only for young men (e.g. under wartime mobilization). Should military service be dependent on gender or physical body conditions? The histogram below shows that 1/4 young men have similar muscular strength as average young women, but military service will be mandatory for the vast majority of them. Should military service be mandatory for the best physically fit women and most men? Or for healthy men only?



Histogram of skeletal muscle to body fat ratio in male and female adolescents:

I don't think military service should be mandatory for men or women.

As above.

harel wrote:Should military service be mandatory for the best physically fit girls and most boys?

Boys and girls? Oh no no no. If it came to a situation where conscription was required, I'd prefer it were "physically fit men and women". Using children as soldiers is a war crime.

The idea of any form of military service being mandatory always strikes me as not only draconian as all hell, but also just plain counter-productive from a military standpoint anyway.

"What our military really needs right now is a whole load of teenagers who actively don't want to be here."

Magic J wrote:As above.

harel wrote:Should military service be mandatory for the best physically fit girls and most boys?

Boys and girls? Oh no no no. If it came to a situation where conscription was required, I'd prefer it were "physically fit men and women". Using children as soldiers is a war crime.

I know of no government that requires anyone under 18 to enlist.


As for the pic above, I feel like I’ve seen that porno before. 🤔

Even if there is no current enforced conscription, still the vast majority of countries assume wartime (defence) mobilisation of males only (not females).

Magic J wrote:Boys and girls? Oh no no no. If it came to a situation where conscription was required, I'd prefer it were "physically fit men and women". Using children as soldiers is a war crime.

Corrected. I meant young men.

poolerboy0077 wrote:I know of no government that requires anyone under 18 to enlist.

Bit of a grey area. The DRC's military uses enlisted children in fighting, and lots of rebel groups in the area recruit children. ISIS claimed the right to govern, and they used children in war. Kurdish forces almost certainly do (and to bring it back to the topic, they also enlist women as soldiers, incidentally).

All reasonably healthy adults regardless of their gender should be allowed to join the military.

I'm not a fan of mandatory military service. However, I think at times it might be a necessary evil.

I do think military culture needs to change and be more accommodating in general. I feel it is catered to certain personalities.

I don't think peacetime conscription or even wartime conscription to foreign theaters is justified. I do, however, think equal standards should be applied to male and female conscription in times of invasion or insurrection.

Anyone who is against conscription is clearly a coward.

Courage means fuck all. I just want to enjoy my own life thanks I don't need to be a hero in someone else's eyes and under someone else's perception of courage.

Also in the event of an invasion scenario loyalty to your own state or government shouldn't be assumed.

What if your own state or government is truly evil and not worth defending and what if the invading force could be seen more as liberators?

Or what if both sides are bad? In that case people might form their own army in opposition to all forces of oppression. They wouldn't have the ability to conscript and it wouldn't be necessary either as there would probably be plenty of volunteers willing to fight for their freedom.

Given the voting results so far, many of us are masculinists in a certain sense. Unfortunatelly, the topic of gender dependency of military service (e.g. under wartime conditions) is completely out of the agenda.

GaySpacePirateKing wrote:What if your own state or government is truly evil and not worth defending and what if the invading force could be seen more as liberators? Or what if both sides are bad?

I guess that apart from North Korea, China etc., the liberation (or reorientation towards West) can be done with soft power, e.g. by a financial support for opposition media, parties, and NGOs.