But our equal rights "senetor" (how is a girl) and voted against equal rights and killed female compulsory military service Girls dont want equal rights
As a mother to a daughter that first was 15 months in the military and then 6 months in Afghanistan I have to say that it should be equal. My daughter volonteered since it was some time ago. And since I am swedish I know we have to be able to defend ourselves and the rest of the nordic countries especielly now.
Two years ago we were reminded that you don't always have a choice if you want to be in a war or not. And while our politicians say that Russia isn't a danger, we are also told to gather food and drinking water, and generally figure out how we would manage without electricity for days. So.....
well thats not only because of war but floods, cyperwar etc. All things that could cut power and water. We were always meant to manage for 3 days without since it is not possible to fix that for everyone for days. We just never knew that. I first heard about it during the covid pandemic.
It's important to note that Danish conscripts have not been forced to go to wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. They go through basic training, but from there they can choose to return to civilian life. Only a big war, like if WW3 broke out, would result in the active use of these conscripts.
When I was 18 years old, all men had to do military service in Sweden. It was only if you had some kind of illness that you didn't have to do it. If you refused, you were fined and you continued refuse you went to jail. So it was pretty much everyone who did military service.
Crippling manpower shortages. We could barely send 600 troops to Latvia. The Danish military is in a sorry state, so needs must. And it is 2024, so women sharing the burden is only fair. We don't want war, but as long as Putin is on our doorstep, we have to do something. Unfortunately as is said in the video, the Danish armed forces have been treated poorly by the Danish politicians and it needs a ground up reworking. The conscripted soldiers in Denmark aren't deployed in war, only the career soldiers are. But conscriptions gives us a reserve. You should copy this in the UK. Spending 11 months in the army also is good for people. You learn confidence and to take care of your self, and a healthy dose of discipline. Something the Brits need to be honest. Time to straighten your back and grow up.
It's not so much manpower shortages but literally just lack of enough money to pay for such exercises and deployments, then the largest issue is not paying the soldiers well enough so that they stick around (Because many soldiers do wish to stay in here, but they just cannot afford to live an adult life on the salary)
She listed the exact reasons why people are leaving the armed forces. When you get older and want to start a family, it is very difficult to combine a military career with a family life, buying a house ect. War is something you are trained for and you know what you've signed up for. It is something every soldier is aware of.
You get mixed up UK style military today and conscription soldiers in Nordic countries.. We aren't fighting wars for government, conscription soldiers are called upon arms only if our country is invaded.. Not to take oil in the middle east or to spread 'democracy' . In case of war where Finland, Denmark, Sweden.. would send troops to another country, under NATO 5th article for an example . only professional soldiers would be deployed. Not conscripted soldiers
you think there hasn't been a huge campaign about how to fulfill the requirements our military has for soldiers. It was first proposed and talked about right after the Ukraine - Russia war
I think its great! We all need to be able to handle a possible crisis, no matter war or flood/fire. So I think we should all learn general surviving skills and also get assigned specific tasks based on our strengths. So everybody should do this! Women are eg often good shooters and problemsolvers. So why not take advantage of that? We possibly need lots of extra personel at hospitals too, child/elderly care, food water distribution etc. So we all need to know how to work together if ANY crisis strikes. Good on Denmark!
"Voluntary" conscripts are still conscripts with all that this status involves. Also plenty "volunteers" "volunteer" after having picked their number and seen that its so low they are likely to be called in anyway and then "volunteer" to influence where and when they have to serve. And if you have a skill they really want (ships engineer, medical doctor etc.) the number doesnt matter. Also note that they have the right not to serve in the military in which case they will serve in some other capacity. Finally in case of war every person aged 18-50 who does not in serve some other capacity or is performing an essential job can be called to serve in the civil defence as and when needed - eg. if the civil defence needs people to carry stretchers or clear rubble they can take whatever people are around.
Dwayne, that's exactly why you have to prepare for war so that you never have to "si vic pacem parabellum" You in Britain have the problem that you have been alienated from all military service, in Finland it is self-evident that men do military service and many thousands of women do it as volunteers every year, and there has also been talk here that conscription is extended to women as well. When you live in a country on the other side of which lives a country/nation that has tried to subjugate your own country for more than a thousand years at certain intervals, it's really not difficult to justify it to people. and Dwayne, you have no way of knowing what would happen if the UK were to be attacked, have you never heard of the Rally around the flag phenomenon, It also helps that the Nordic countries don't tend to fight wars of aggression. that's why e.g. the name of every single Nordic armed force is the defense forces, not the army like elsewhere, the name says the essentials, it's much easier to get people into the defense forces when it's about specifically defending one's own way of life, one's own country and one's own values, The situation in Europe is currently such that every single country with any common sense should introduce conscription again, Dwayne, did you know that if the UK introduced a system similar to the one in Finland, you would have a reserve of 3.3 million people
Well I live in Denmark but they don’t even have compulsory military service for men. You sign up and there is a lottery to pull the quota from the people signed up.
@@KurtFrederiksen just to be fair if Danish women tolerates a breastfeeding “women” statue outside the women museum they should be conscripted to the army in case of war.
Yeah i was in the army and my daughter has been also.. I think it should be equal for both genders to join the army by choice. Note: even though we joined by choice, and is civilians now, the army CAN recall us in case of emergency for the rest of our lifes
Yes, the conscription is so they can check for the best suited among all. Since motivation is important, and for a lot of positions strength also is is it likely that there will be a clear majority men selected.
@@cynic7049 Very few positions in a modern army have a particular strength requirement. I worked with it in the 80's and there was - then - only two positions with larger physical strength requirements in the military defense.
Denmark has had conscription since 1848, with a short break 1940-45. It's not new. Just a touch broader. Retention sucks because the labour market it quite boyant, and working conditions and pay haven't been great. Conscipts are for defence only, no foreign deployments. That's for the pros. I should point out that actually going to war was good for recruitment to the proffesionel branch. People who choose war as a proffesion want to test their skill.
As a dane, I don't know if I am out of the loop or back in the loop or around the loop. But I am pretty sure this never got through parlament. Or 70% sure. My memory is clouded
Look up "anden delaftale under forsvarsforliget 2024-2033". It does seem to have passed on 30.4.2024, all be it not through a vote in parlament, but some kind of cross-party majority agreement.
Considering the serious problems of sexual harassment and rape in the military, I cannot think it is reasonable to force women to be there. When they have fixed that problem, of course it should be equal. But as for now, something like 25% of those serving are already women, and those who decide to leave the military often do so because of the sexist environment. Calling people to go to the military is always a hard question - can you really force people to do that? On the other hand, should the military only be in the hands of those who love guns? Aren't the people who hate it very important to have there? But these problems are equal for men and women, since the service is not mainly dependant on physical strength anymore. * But to call people in with a high risk of trauma from their "comrades" and superior - that's not "equal".
-protection your country Why then attack another border ? and haras a border crises to ryssia ? every body have forgotten about the agreemet from 1990 ? UN ?
You want equality then this was a needed step.. Still way off as it is less than 50% of the yearly drafted people.. But it's a step in the right direction.. Of course we don't want to go to war, few does, and those who does likely need a shrink more than the army.. But sadly it is still needed, Russia is proving that time and time again. The people she is talking about are those with year long service leaving.. The salary is a large part of it for many from what i hear, underpaid work, for very long hours at times.. It's a life style that you need to accept, low wages does not make it an easier pill to swallow.. Also it is not about going out to fight wars, it is about being trained to be able to defend if need be. No one is conscripted into fighting, unless war comes to our doorstep if you will, anyone fighting in other countries does so of their own choice, after the conscription time is done, they chose to sign up for service, that is fully something they decide to do, never forced.
Hven you are in the military you willing to fight! They liv fore the reasons she sade. A civilian is a person not in the military! Hvat else wood you call them?
We don't pay 2% of our GDP to NATO. We are all expected to invest 2% of our own GDP into our own military, so that every NATO country has a proper military, instead of like 3 generals with half a rocket launcher between them.
I think you are absolutely right! It is insane, to force people to risk their lives, to fight a war, that (mostly) only the people in power and those who make money from it, actually wants. All the soldiers should put down their weapon and let those who want the wars, fight them, themselves... in a battlefiels far away from the rest of us...
But how many people do you think, actually WANT war? Dont you think we could agree to a designated area in... ex Siberia or the like, for them to fight in. And let all the rest of us, enjoy our peace and just live... I know it is not going to happen, as long as money rules the world. 🙄😞 But a girl can dream, can't she... I DO think it is INSANE to force people to fight in a war...
@@slandebande I am glad to hear that. - But would they still have this option, in case of a war that killed lots of the voluteers? Probably not. Back in time, in some countries, young men would be forced into the army by threats on their families lives...
Sorry, but how stupid must a government be to send conscripts abroad unless they volunteer for it? And one must be even more stupid (or possibly just feed by Russian propaganda) to just assume that other government would be so stupid without any indication that they are, as Dwayne and molly9518 do.
Conscripts can only serve inside the Kingdom of Denmark. Only professional soldiers, employed on a contract, may serve abroad. Denmark has had conscription since 1849
Women in the military is fine. But I hear from friends that it takes a very special kind of mindset to be at the frontlines of combat. When you're in the battlefield as a group, you have to be of 1 mind, 1 body and you move and think like a squad. This is always much easier, if a group consists of members that are more alike than diverse. This will by all manner of logic, lead to so much death in the false name of equality. Edit: And I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the frontline, some women are definitely build for it mentally. I'm simply saying it won't be where most women would fit in or shouldn't try to fit in. We need more women in intelligence jobs within the military.
It sounds like it also depends very much on the population and people of which country we are talking about, in some countries the morale in these matters is generally low, whether it is men or women, and in some the attitude to the matter is completely different. When I was in the army myself in 1998, we had a woman who was really petite, and yet she was one of the most self-initiative and best individuals in our unit to handle various tasks...
There is a minor detail forgotten in all of this equality talk.... The average man weighs almost 1.5 time that of the average woman, especially if he is in good shape as you would normally be in military service.... No woman would be able to carry a man at 1.5 time her size off the battlefield if he gets wounded... then what?
So are the main task for soldiers to run around an carry each other? Hmmm(?) Well, to start; we do have other dedicated medic soliders with stretchers and viechles. And they are orgenized well and on all levels in the armed forced (from an armé, through divisons down to even patrols). Don't forget there's strong women too. ...and there's so many aqrguments going all the way to the facts like that there's different jobs, responsibilites, division of labour, different branches of the armed forces (like cyber defence, abord ships, in airplanes and a lot more) ...and so on and so on... It's around 100 years since the last war when the majority of it was focused on running in the trenches... And even then they didn't spend all their time carrying each other(!) And related to that it's a long time ago, -here's some fun fact; The big breakthrough in military medic organization came in the crimean war (the one in the 1850's) and it was even a woman that lead the way (Florence Nithingale). ....So this kind of argumentation so wrong in so many levels!
@@iskrystall1766 Actually there are also arguments for the opposite... in Vietnam both sides often had to carry out their wounded on their backs, so did the British and the Argentine in the Falklands. It depends on the conditions of the conflict. I actually don't oppose to the female conscription, you may have read that into my comment and that is on you. But I caution that this has to be done for the right reasons and not due to some woke idea or as a pushback towards the women's rights movement. And you can think I am wrong on as many levels as you want but the debate around this subject in the country this video relates to is simply not nuanced. It is a pushback and everyone agrees for all the wrong reasons. There is a practical reality behind all of the fine words about equality and it is the fact that some people are simply more important than others in certain aspects on a society/national level. Women, not all, but I would argue most, are ill suited for military service, at least infantry/frontline service for a number of practical reasons. They cannot carry as much gear, they are less likely to be able to carry a big heavy man off the battlefield if they have to and they will stand a lesser chance in a trench brawl. They can do other tasks in the service as you suggest, but I ask that we think about that before we force them to do so in the name of equality. I am not sure what you think wars are like, but it is literally people being blown to bits and pieces for no good f***ing reason. It is misery, suffering and death. A war of attrition as we see in Ukraine is a survivalist scenario on a national scale and lets be honest..... In that situation we can do without 30-40% of our men if we have to for a generation, but we simply cannot do without such a high percentage of our women for obvious reasons. Here we are simply not equals due to the fact that we are different and, on an overall scale not considering the individual souls that has to suffer and die, then our men are simply more expendable. I am sorry to be wrong on many levels here, but its how I see it.
@@NeNederen I agree that it's many nuances and it's good to see your arguments. My position on this is influenced by the fact that I am a woman, and an officer. I was trained and served in the Norwegian Infantry, and I also served in different positions until my retirement in the national guard a few years ago. I have confidence in the fellow nordic women and I have trained with-, and met quite a few of the Danish women in arms. And don't forget: not all boys are that strong either... in my country (also with conscription for both genders) - it's only the best that get to serve regardless if they are men or women.
@@iskrystall1766 Do you remember when equal conscription was introduced in Norway? I am curious how the debate was back then in Norway? In Denmark it has been without substance. You have the pushback, the angry old men, that argue that if women wants equality why are they not advocating equal conscription? Mind you that these are the same type of people that wouldn't even like them in the service in the first place. On the other side the Women's' right movement and woke do-good'ers who has won every women's right battle they started in the last 30 years and now, drowning in their own success, have to give concessions and agree with equal conscription not to appear hypocritical after all their victories in society the last 30 years, mind you that this is the same group of people that would never volunteer for service! These are the only 2 voices I have heard in the debate and they both agree for all the wrong reasons. There has been no nuances and rational debate about it because even though I honestly believe my arguments are perfectly valid if you look at the grand scheme of things, you cannot say that in public, then you are either being discriminative and a reactionary. I worry if we do this and call it up 50/50 - what do we do 30 years from now if shit hits the fan? By then the reserves will be somewhat 50/50 balanced after 30 years of equality and that means you will have to call up an equal amount of men and women to fight and die because those are the reserves you have that are trained to defend your country... at that point there is a risk that its not enough to only call up the male part of the reserves. It is not sustainable for a society - if you end up in large conflicts, and there are 2 world wars already to show this is actually not impossible, then you will end up being equal in demographic destruction afterwards, it doesn't even matter if you win or loose the conflict. The major countries in Europe were able to replenish the populations after the 2 world wars in decades..... it would have taken a century or some very non-woke policies if they had lost an equal part of their women. Women should be welcome in the service if they so wish, some may not be suitable for some tasks the same way some men are not. But forcing them, which is what conscription is all about, is a very big mistake that has potential future consequences on a large scale for a country and this has never been a part of the debate. It has been about a misplaced equality but the premise of this discussion is bull shit. The reality is that when it comes to military service where some simply have to be sacrificed in the event of war, then men are simply not equal to women, men are simply less important to society. I am not trying to convince you of my opinions, I am sure I will fail but at least I hope to provoke you to think about the overlooked practical reality that is completely forgotten in the modern equality debate.
@@NeNederen Thank you for your valuable and insightful arguments. It will take alot to comment on all your arguments, but start with one: In my country it wasn't a "big bang" from zero to full equality. It has developed in tiny steps and one step at a time. In the 80'ies there was voluntary(or more precice: they coldn't deny you to apply as a woman), and usually only for officers position and staff-positions. Although we had our first woman fighter pilot back in the late 80'ies, it was in the "understanding" that this was "in peace time" and it took a while for the next one to come along... There has always been discussions and arguments for each step. But we have moved slowly forward as the result were good. I remember a lot of the arguments you have from this "journey" (of course in other words...) But maybe the largest shift in the norwegian opinion came about 5-10 years ago when it became apparent that quite a large group of young men didn't have the motivation and didn't have the same physical abilities as we were led to believe from the "old days". At the same time the result for young women was getting better and for the most motivated girls their result physichally and mentally was as good as the boys... Even the evaluation from the operations abroad such as the "arab spring" and afhanistan showed that women was able to serve and get good results. And now we see the good result where we all have the duty to serve (conscription) - but not all get selected. -That's reserved for the best men or women. When it comes to the next steps and a more convential mobilization we also has the concept of "total defence" that includes the involvement and duty to serve for all parts of society that involves everything from logistics, transportation, infrastructure, hospitals and so on. In my last 5 years I was the platoon commander in the medical corpse and I could then conscribe sivilian nurses and doctors along with medic soliders in our missions, And in those positions there was about 75% females. ...And again a war also consist of many more tasks; Think about the logistics problems in the first part of the russian invasion of Ukraine. What about the drone operators? Or hybrid electronic and information attacks? . . Well, this comment-field in youtube is not the best place to argue very structured... I'm sorry about that. You make a good point at the end of your post: we will probably not change each others minds - but it's interesting to exchange views and hopefully we will both appreciate that it's different views and experiences. I have enjoyed it!
Equal rights also mean equal responsibility.
But our equal rights "senetor" (how is a girl) and voted against equal rights and killed female compulsory military service
Girls dont want equal rights
Exactly
As a mother to a daughter that first was 15 months in the military and then 6 months in Afghanistan I have to say that it should be equal. My daughter volonteered since it was some time ago. And since I am swedish I know we have to be able to defend ourselves and the rest of the nordic countries especielly now.
Respect to your daughter from Denmark.
Two years ago we were reminded that you don't always have a choice if you want to be in a war or not.
And while our politicians say that Russia isn't a danger, we are also told to gather food and drinking water, and generally figure out how we would manage without electricity for days. So.....
well thats not only because of war but floods, cyperwar etc. All things that could cut power and water. We were always meant to manage for 3 days without since it is not possible to fix that for everyone for days. We just never knew that. I first heard about it during the covid pandemic.
So are you gonna defend our country against BRICS powers?
Your not entitled to anything, you care about, if you are not willing to fight for it or defend it !!
It's important to note that Danish conscripts have not been forced to go to wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. They go through basic training, but from there they can choose to return to civilian life. Only a big war, like if WW3 broke out, would result in the active use of these conscripts.
When I was 18 years old, all men had to do military service in Sweden. It was only if you had some kind of illness that you didn't have to do it. If you refused, you were fined and you continued refuse you went to jail. So it was pretty much everyone who did military service.
I have been calling for equality in conscription in Denmark for 30 years.
Crippling manpower shortages. We could barely send 600 troops to Latvia. The Danish military is in a sorry state, so needs must. And it is 2024, so women sharing the burden is only fair. We don't want war, but as long as Putin is on our doorstep, we have to do something. Unfortunately as is said in the video, the Danish armed forces have been treated poorly by the Danish politicians and it needs a ground up reworking.
The conscripted soldiers in Denmark aren't deployed in war, only the career soldiers are. But conscriptions gives us a reserve. You should copy this in the UK. Spending 11 months in the army also is good for people. You learn confidence and to take care of your self, and a healthy dose of discipline. Something the Brits need to be honest. Time to straighten your back and grow up.
It's not so much manpower shortages but literally just lack of enough money to pay for such exercises and deployments, then the largest issue is not paying the soldiers well enough so that they stick around (Because many soldiers do wish to stay in here, but they just cannot afford to live an adult life on the salary)
@@MadsenTheDane and the extremely underfunded staff, i mean 13k or whatever it is now after taxes isnt really the greatest
@@russianbear318 I get around 15k after taxes as a Konstabel, tough times haha
@@MadsenTheDane thats what i mean, close enough though
She listed the exact reasons why people are leaving the armed forces. When you get older and want to start a family, it is very difficult to combine a military career with a family life, buying a house ect.
War is something you are trained for and you know what you've signed up for. It is something every soldier is aware of.
2% of GDP investment into military, not to NATO
Not give 2 procent to nato. The have to invest in their own military. In sweden we invest alot more than 2%.
You get mixed up UK style military today and conscription soldiers in Nordic countries..
We aren't fighting wars for government, conscription soldiers are called upon arms only if our country is invaded..
Not to take oil in the middle east or to spread 'democracy' .
In case of war where Finland, Denmark, Sweden..
would send troops to another country, under NATO 5th article for an example .
only professional soldiers would be deployed.
Not conscripted soldiers
you think there hasn't been a huge campaign about how to fulfill the requirements our military has for soldiers. It was first proposed and talked about right after the Ukraine - Russia war
The UK had conscription until 1960 and the last UK conscript was let go in 1963.
I think its great! We all need to be able to handle a possible crisis, no matter war or flood/fire.
So I think we should all learn general surviving skills and also get assigned specific tasks based on our strengths. So everybody should do this!
Women are eg often good shooters and problemsolvers. So why not take advantage of that?
We possibly need lots of extra personel at hospitals too, child/elderly care, food water distribution etc.
So we all need to know how to work together if ANY crisis strikes.
Good on Denmark!
the 2% is not like a members fee to NATO. It means we should be spending 2% on the defense budget on people, veapons and other materials
First - the date is wrong - it's from 1. January 2027 - second - conscription ONLY kicks in, if there's less than 5000 volunteers in a year.
"Voluntary" conscripts are still conscripts with all that this status involves. Also plenty "volunteers" "volunteer" after having picked their number and seen that its so low they are likely to be called in anyway and then "volunteer" to influence where and when they have to serve.
And if you have a skill they really want (ships engineer, medical doctor etc.) the number doesnt matter.
Also note that they have the right not to serve in the military in which case they will serve in some other capacity.
Finally in case of war every person aged 18-50 who does not in serve some other capacity or is performing an essential job can be called to serve in the civil defence as and when needed - eg. if the civil defence needs people to carry stretchers or clear rubble they can take whatever people are around.
payment is the elephant
i am proud of the norten shieldmaidens
Dwayne, that's exactly why you have to prepare for war so that you never have to "si vic pacem parabellum" You in Britain have the problem that you have been alienated from all military service, in Finland it is self-evident that men do military service and many thousands of women do it as volunteers every year, and there has also been talk here that conscription is extended to women as well. When you live in a country on the other side of which lives a country/nation that has tried to subjugate your own country for more than a thousand years at certain intervals, it's really not difficult to justify it to people. and Dwayne, you have no way of knowing what would happen if the UK were to be attacked, have you never heard of the Rally around the flag phenomenon, It also helps that the Nordic countries don't tend to fight wars of aggression. that's why e.g. the name of every single Nordic armed force is the defense forces, not the army like elsewhere, the name says the essentials, it's much easier to get people into the defense forces when it's about specifically defending one's own way of life, one's own country and one's own values, The situation in Europe is currently such that every single country with any common sense should introduce conscription again, Dwayne, did you know that if the UK introduced a system similar to the one in Finland, you would have a reserve of 3.3 million people
Well I live in Denmark but they don’t even have compulsory military service for men. You sign up and there is a lottery to pull the quota from the people signed up.
@@KurtFrederiksen I believe each country has this law. If there is a war they will conscript people.
@@KurtFrederiksen just to be fair if Danish women tolerates a breastfeeding “women” statue outside the women museum they should be conscripted to the army in case of war.
U want equal rights then this isnt controversal
Yeah i was in the army and my daughter has been also.. I think it should be equal for both genders to join the army by choice.
Note: even though we joined by choice, and is civilians now, the army CAN recall us in case of emergency for the rest of our lifes
I'd bet good money NO Country has EVER let the common man vote,
if it's going to war or not.
Living in sweden and its not 50% men and 50% women. Its 69.8% men 30.2% women year 2024.
Yes, the conscription is so they can check for the best suited among all. Since motivation is important, and for a lot of positions strength also is is it likely that there will be a clear majority men selected.
@@cynic7049 Very few positions in a modern army have a particular strength requirement. I worked with it in the 80's and there was - then - only two positions with larger physical strength requirements in the military defense.
Denmark has had conscription since 1848, with a short break 1940-45. It's not new. Just a touch broader. Retention sucks because the labour market it quite boyant, and working conditions and pay haven't been great. Conscipts are for defence only, no foreign deployments. That's for the pros. I should point out that actually going to war was good for recruitment to the proffesionel branch. People who choose war as a proffesion want to test their skill.
As a dane, I don't know if I am out of the loop or back in the loop or around the loop. But I am pretty sure this never got through parlament. Or 70% sure. My memory is clouded
Look up "anden delaftale under forsvarsforliget 2024-2033".
It does seem to have passed on 30.4.2024, all be it not through a vote in parlament, but some kind of cross-party majority agreement.
@@A_Haunted_Pancake oh so it did go through. All i remember was that everyone seemed against it.
Considering the serious problems of sexual harassment and rape in the military, I cannot think it is reasonable to force women to be there.
When they have fixed that problem, of course it should be equal. But as for now, something like 25% of those serving are already women, and those who decide to leave the military often do so because of the sexist environment.
Calling people to go to the military is always a hard question - can you really force people to do that? On the other hand, should the military only be in the hands of those who love guns? Aren't the people who hate it very important to have there? But these problems are equal for men and women, since the service is not mainly dependant on physical strength anymore.
*
But to call people in with a high risk of trauma from their "comrades" and superior - that's not "equal".
-protection your country
Why then attack another border ? and haras a border crises to ryssia ? every body have forgotten about the agreemet from 1990 ? UN ?
Yhe UK had conscription as late as 1960.
4 women?
@@tasteful-attitude No, squirrels only.
Equality!
We have only 3 months compulsary and its vefy easy ti get out of
at 3:45 ... do u really think this just happened ?? Ofc there has been a long debate and campaign for this in Denmark as well...
We are small countries in the north. To arbitrarily refuse to consider half the population is quite stupid.
Distinguishing between men and women is not arbitrary...
arbitrarily? was it to sound not stupid.
@@herrbonk3635 Yes it is.
@@SteamboatW So men and women have equal body strengths, men have a period and can give birth, and so on... Vilken färg har himlen i din värld?
@@herrbonk3635 Why do you make out to be so stupid? I am certain you aren't because people can't be so stupid naturally.
You want equality then this was a needed step.. Still way off as it is less than 50% of the yearly drafted people.. But it's a step in the right direction..
Of course we don't want to go to war, few does, and those who does likely need a shrink more than the army.. But sadly it is still needed, Russia is proving that time and time again.
The people she is talking about are those with year long service leaving.. The salary is a large part of it for many from what i hear, underpaid work, for very long hours at times.. It's a life style that you need to accept, low wages does not make it an easier pill to swallow..
Also it is not about going out to fight wars, it is about being trained to be able to defend if need be.
No one is conscripted into fighting, unless war comes to our doorstep if you will, anyone fighting in other countries does so of their own choice, after the conscription time is done, they chose to sign up for service, that is fully something they decide to do, never forced.
Hven you are in the military you willing to fight! They liv fore the reasons she sade. A civilian is a person not in the military! Hvat else wood you call them?
We don't pay 2% of our GDP to NATO. We are all expected to invest 2% of our own GDP into our own military, so that every NATO country has a proper military, instead of like 3 generals with half a rocket launcher between them.
Russia has enogh problems with ukrina right now. But if they won ukrina right now they would think: whos next
I think you are absolutely right! It is insane, to force people to risk their lives, to fight a war, that (mostly) only the people in power and those who make money from it, actually wants.
All the soldiers should put down their weapon and let those who want the wars, fight them, themselves... in a battlefiels far away from the rest of us...
But yes, if they want, both men and women should be able to join the war in that battlefield, far away...
Hmm and what if the war is on your border or in your country, who should fight and defend the country?
But how many people do you think, actually WANT war?
Dont you think we could agree to a designated area in... ex Siberia or the like, for them to fight in. And let all the rest of us, enjoy our peace and just live...
I know it is not going to happen, as long as money rules the world. 🙄😞
But a girl can dream, can't she...
I DO think it is INSANE to force people to fight in a war...
People wont be forced unto a war, at least not in Denmark. You always have the option to deny it.
@@slandebande I am glad to hear that.
- But would they still have this option, in case of a war that killed lots of the voluteers? Probably not.
Back in time, in some countries, young men would be forced into the army by threats on their families lives...
Sorry, but how stupid must a government be to send conscripts abroad unless they volunteer for it?
And one must be even more stupid (or possibly just feed by Russian propaganda) to just assume that other government would be so stupid without any indication that they are, as Dwayne and molly9518 do.
All Danish soldiers who is send abroad is volunteers
you sound very clever.
@@cynic7049 Sweden sent conscripts abroad for a few hundred years, and so did Denmark.
Conscripts can only serve inside the Kingdom of Denmark. Only professional soldiers, employed on a contract, may serve abroad. Denmark has had conscription since 1849
Sorry Cynic, but how stupid must you be to post your misinformed opinion as a fact?
Maybe This lady, her daughters and sisters should join the Army herself 😂
Women in the military is fine. But I hear from friends that it takes a very special kind of mindset to be at the frontlines of combat. When you're in the battlefield as a group, you have to be of 1 mind, 1 body and you move and think like a squad. This is always much easier, if a group consists of members that are more alike than diverse. This will by all manner of logic, lead to so much death in the false name of equality.
Edit: And I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the frontline, some women are definitely build for it mentally. I'm simply saying it won't be where most women would fit in or shouldn't try to fit in. We need more women in intelligence jobs within the military.
It sounds like it also depends very much on the population and people of which country we are talking about, in some countries the morale in these matters is generally low, whether it is men or women, and in some the attitude to the matter is completely different. When I was in the army myself in 1998, we had a woman who was really petite, and yet she was one of the most self-initiative and best individuals in our unit to handle various tasks...
There is a minor detail forgotten in all of this equality talk.... The average man weighs almost 1.5 time that of the average woman, especially if he is in good shape as you would normally be in military service.... No woman would be able to carry a man at 1.5 time her size off the battlefield if he gets wounded... then what?
So are the main task for soldiers to run around an carry each other? Hmmm(?) Well, to start; we do have other dedicated medic soliders with stretchers and viechles. And they are orgenized well and on all levels in the armed forced (from an armé, through divisons down to even patrols). Don't forget there's strong women too. ...and there's so many aqrguments going all the way to the facts like that there's different jobs, responsibilites, division of labour, different branches of the armed forces (like cyber defence, abord ships, in airplanes and a lot more) ...and so on and so on... It's around 100 years since the last war when the majority of it was focused on running in the trenches... And even then they didn't spend all their time carrying each other(!) And related to that it's a long time ago, -here's some fun fact; The big breakthrough in military medic organization came in the crimean war (the one in the 1850's) and it was even a woman that lead the way (Florence Nithingale). ....So this kind of argumentation so wrong in so many levels!
@@iskrystall1766 Actually there are also arguments for the opposite... in Vietnam both sides often had to carry out their wounded on their backs, so did the British and the Argentine in the Falklands. It depends on the conditions of the conflict. I actually don't oppose to the female conscription, you may have read that into my comment and that is on you. But I caution that this has to be done for the right reasons and not due to some woke idea or as a pushback towards the women's rights movement.
And you can think I am wrong on as many levels as you want but the debate around this subject in the country this video relates to is simply not nuanced. It is a pushback and everyone agrees for all the wrong reasons.
There is a practical reality behind all of the fine words about equality and it is the fact that some people are simply more important than others in certain aspects on a society/national level.
Women, not all, but I would argue most, are ill suited for military service, at least infantry/frontline service for a number of practical reasons. They cannot carry as much gear, they are less likely to be able to carry a big heavy man off the battlefield if they have to and they will stand a lesser chance in a trench brawl. They can do other tasks in the service as you suggest, but I ask that we think about that before we force them to do so in the name of equality.
I am not sure what you think wars are like, but it is literally people being blown to bits and pieces for no good f***ing reason. It is misery, suffering and death.
A war of attrition as we see in Ukraine is a survivalist scenario on a national scale and lets be honest..... In that situation we can do without 30-40% of our men if we have to for a generation, but we simply cannot do without such a high percentage of our women for obvious reasons.
Here we are simply not equals due to the fact that we are different and, on an overall scale not considering the individual souls that has to suffer and die, then our men are simply more expendable.
I am sorry to be wrong on many levels here, but its how I see it.
@@NeNederen I agree that it's many nuances and it's good to see your arguments. My position on this is influenced by the fact that I am a woman, and an officer. I was trained and served in the Norwegian Infantry, and I also served in different positions until my retirement in the national guard a few years ago. I have confidence in the fellow nordic women and I have trained with-, and met quite a few of the Danish women in arms. And don't forget: not all boys are that strong either... in my country (also with conscription for both genders) - it's only the best that get to serve regardless if they are men or women.
@@iskrystall1766 Do you remember when equal conscription was introduced in Norway? I am curious how the debate was back then in Norway?
In Denmark it has been without substance. You have the pushback, the angry old men, that argue that if women wants equality why are they not advocating equal conscription? Mind you that these are the same type of people that wouldn't even like them in the service in the first place.
On the other side the Women's' right movement and woke do-good'ers who has won every women's right battle they started in the last 30 years and now, drowning in their own success, have to give concessions and agree with equal conscription not to appear hypocritical after all their victories in society the last 30 years, mind you that this is the same group of people that would never volunteer for service!
These are the only 2 voices I have heard in the debate and they both agree for all the wrong reasons. There has been no nuances and rational debate about it because even though I honestly believe my arguments are perfectly valid if you look at the grand scheme of things, you cannot say that in public, then you are either being discriminative and a reactionary.
I worry if we do this and call it up 50/50 - what do we do 30 years from now if shit hits the fan? By then the reserves will be somewhat 50/50 balanced after 30 years of equality and that means you will have to call up an equal amount of men and women to fight and die because those are the reserves you have that are trained to defend your country... at that point there is a risk that its not enough to only call up the male part of the reserves.
It is not sustainable for a society - if you end up in large conflicts, and there are 2 world wars already to show this is actually not impossible, then you will end up being equal in demographic destruction afterwards, it doesn't even matter if you win or loose the conflict. The major countries in Europe were able to replenish the populations after the 2 world wars in decades..... it would have taken a century or some very non-woke policies if they had lost an equal part of their women.
Women should be welcome in the service if they so wish, some may not be suitable for some tasks the same way some men are not. But forcing them, which is what conscription is all about, is a very big mistake that has potential future consequences on a large scale for a country and this has never been a part of the debate. It has been about a misplaced equality but the premise of this discussion is bull shit. The reality is that when it comes to military service where some simply have to be sacrificed in the event of war, then men are simply not equal to women, men are simply less important to society.
I am not trying to convince you of my opinions, I am sure I will fail but at least I hope to provoke you to think about the overlooked practical reality that is completely forgotten in the modern equality debate.
@@NeNederen Thank you for your valuable and insightful arguments. It will take alot to comment on all your arguments, but start with one: In my country it wasn't a "big bang" from zero to full equality. It has developed in tiny steps and one step at a time. In the 80'ies there was voluntary(or more precice: they coldn't deny you to apply as a woman), and usually only for officers position and staff-positions. Although we had our first woman fighter pilot back in the late 80'ies, it was in the "understanding" that this was "in peace time" and it took a while for the next one to come along... There has always been discussions and arguments for each step. But we have moved slowly forward as the result were good. I remember a lot of the arguments you have from this "journey" (of course in other words...) But maybe the largest shift in the norwegian opinion came about 5-10 years ago when it became apparent that quite a large group of young men didn't have the motivation and didn't have the same physical abilities as we were led to believe from the "old days". At the same time the result for young women was getting better and for the most motivated girls their result physichally and mentally was as good as the boys... Even the evaluation from the operations abroad such as the "arab spring" and afhanistan showed that women was able to serve and get good results. And now we see the good result where we all have the duty to serve (conscription) - but not all get selected. -That's reserved for the best men or women. When it comes to the next steps and a more convential mobilization we also has the concept of "total defence" that includes the involvement and duty to serve for all parts of society that involves everything from logistics, transportation, infrastructure, hospitals and so on. In my last 5 years I was the platoon commander in the medical corpse and I could then conscribe sivilian nurses and doctors along with medic soliders in our missions, And in those positions there was about 75% females. ...And again a war also consist of many more tasks; Think about the logistics problems in the first part of the russian invasion of Ukraine. What about the drone operators? Or hybrid electronic and information attacks? . . Well, this comment-field in youtube is not the best place to argue very structured... I'm sorry about that. You make a good point at the end of your post: we will probably not change each others minds - but it's interesting to exchange views and hopefully we will both appreciate that it's different views and experiences. I have enjoyed it!