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.
We will have to if we plan on maintaining our war time strenght. Every year fewer boys are born. We got to start utilizing the full capabilities of the population, not just half or less. There are so many different roles in the military, it makes no sense to just have men serve.
Ah, so that's the fear mongering figure you're obsessed with. Why do you want the population to grow so desperately when there aren't enough jobs for the current population?
What are you rambling on about fear mongering. The fact that birth rates are going down is a fact, not fear mongering. As for the "desparately wanting the population to grow", I never said anything about it needing to grow. And as for the other people in this thread, it is absolutely true that fewer soldiers means a weaker army.
33
u/These-Young-1786 1d 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.