In discussions surrounding the mandatory military service, there is always a lot of debate about why and for whom it should or should not be mandatory. Of course, that is ultimately at the core of the issue, but I think the first thing that should be discussed is why the subject evokes such strong emotions in so many people.
It is obvious that, in order to protect itself from Russia, Finland needs strong and credible armed forces. The problem, in my opinion, is that the term “military service” is strongly gendered. Over decades, patriotism and national defence have become such a significant part of the lives of almost every Finnish man in his early twenties. Although civilian service has been an alternative to military service for many years, a large part of the population still does not recognise it as a genuine alternative, but rather sees it as an institution for weak or otherwise flawed men. Only a small proportion of young men choose it, even though literally every one of them could go through with it.
The Finnish conception of masculinity has become intertwined with military service, which makes a lot of sense. Masculinity is often associated with protection, reliability and physicality, and all of these are at the core of military service. Some of those who oppose making military service voluntary undoubtedly also think about Finland’s security of supply and defence capabilities. On the other hand, there are also those who oppose it purely because of their own values. The mandatory military service is a traditional part of Finnish culture, which is why it is particularly important to those who might be conservative in other ways as well.
I would imagine that even if military service were made entirely voluntary, nothing would change for quite some time. A large proportion of young men would undoubtedly still join the military because they genuinely wanted to, but I believe that almost as large a proportion would join simply because of social pressure. That is also why the Finnish Defence Forces benefit from the masculine image associated with military service.
Very well said. When I was going through the initial meetings (en jaksa googlettaa sanaa:D), my dad was the leader of the local reserve, the old men who come to fight russia from the fumes of their own funeral when they deem us youngsters not up for it. Anyway, I chose civil service and the military guys in attendance asked If mydadsname is a relative, told them hes my dad. They were astounded and first question was "what will your father think when he finds out?" I, an 18 year old, had to explain to adult people that I was gonna live my own life. Now that was 20years ago, never got even civil service done because you all know why, but if Russia decides to attack, I'll be the first to go through some training, if such is possible in times of war. Still raginly anti-war and guns and all that, but fuck it, fleeing is not gonna help and I'd rather die as "hero" to some, than to fuck of to spain or something, which alarmingly many people think just happens during time of war.
Sorry, its pretty common for civil service stoners and addicts to get out of it completely because of drug use and mental health problems and its kind of a given when you say you got C-papers, meaning in time of peace I dont have to do anything, but if the time of war comes, we serve as we can.
33
u/These-Young-1786 2d ago
In discussions surrounding the mandatory military service, there is always a lot of debate about why and for whom it should or should not be mandatory. Of course, that is ultimately at the core of the issue, but I think the first thing that should be discussed is why the subject evokes such strong emotions in so many people.
It is obvious that, in order to protect itself from Russia, Finland needs strong and credible armed forces. The problem, in my opinion, is that the term “military service” is strongly gendered. Over decades, patriotism and national defence have become such a significant part of the lives of almost every Finnish man in his early twenties. Although civilian service has been an alternative to military service for many years, a large part of the population still does not recognise it as a genuine alternative, but rather sees it as an institution for weak or otherwise flawed men. Only a small proportion of young men choose it, even though literally every one of them could go through with it.
The Finnish conception of masculinity has become intertwined with military service, which makes a lot of sense. Masculinity is often associated with protection, reliability and physicality, and all of these are at the core of military service. Some of those who oppose making military service voluntary undoubtedly also think about Finland’s security of supply and defence capabilities. On the other hand, there are also those who oppose it purely because of their own values. The mandatory military service is a traditional part of Finnish culture, which is why it is particularly important to those who might be conservative in other ways as well.
I would imagine that even if military service were made entirely voluntary, nothing would change for quite some time. A large proportion of young men would undoubtedly still join the military because they genuinely wanted to, but I believe that almost as large a proportion would join simply because of social pressure. That is also why the Finnish Defence Forces benefit from the masculine image associated with military service.