logoalt Hacker News

diathyesterday at 4:31 PM24 repliesview on HN

Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women are well capable of.


Replies

fabian2kyesterday at 4:41 PM

Because it would take a change to the constitution to do that while reinstating the old draft laws only takes a regular majority in parliament. The draft is a severe limitation of personal freedom, so you can't just do that by law. The draft for men is already enabled in the constitution, the draft for woman isn't.

At this moment, changing the constitution is not possible, there is no majority for this. So that pretty much took the option to change the broader parameters out of the discussion entirely.

show 1 reply
atomicnumber3yesterday at 4:45 PM

A lot of draft laws haven't been touched in a long time and aren't updated for modern gender politics. Though I do wonder if they'll actually get updated ever - no politician wants to touch it and it's not like anyone is screaming for the right to be forced to go die in war.

It's always weird to me how surprised women are that every single man they know has had to specifically, actually physically ink paper to sign up for the draft. It definitely feels weird/spooky when you do it, given the implications and that despite being compulsory it's not automatically done for you.

show 3 replies
MrsPeachesyesterday at 4:41 PM

> For women, answering the questions is voluntary, as they cannot be required to perform military service under the Constitution.

Specially article 12a Paragraph 4: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...

Specifically it says:

If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.

bilsbieyesterday at 5:09 PM

Seems crazy that women can vote to send men to war.

show 1 reply
shin_laoyesterday at 4:36 PM

Look at the Ukraine war. Who is being drafted against their will?

show 2 replies
yorwbayesterday at 4:45 PM

Because the constitution only allows drafting men: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...

The intersection of parties wanting to reinstate compulsory military service and parties supporting gender equality doesn't currently have the necessary supermajority to change the constitution. So we get a wishy-washy compromise, as is so often the case in democracies.

baxtryesterday at 4:55 PM

Starting 2026, Ukraine at least has restrictions on women leaving the country as well.

Women in the civil service, law enforcement agencies, or those registered in the military and serving under contract may face restrictions on traveling abroad, particularly for non-official purposes.

show 2 replies
stephbookyesterday at 4:50 PM

According to the constitution, women can be drafted into hospitals.

Look at $$4. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_12a.html

You could of course require women to register, too. In case of war, they'll be drafted into hospitals. They just don't want to.

t0bia_syesterday at 4:54 PM

What about man that has gender woman in papers?

show 5 replies
jandrewrogersyesterday at 8:18 PM

Most roles in the military require ad hoc applications of brute strength to do the job competently even if it isn't per se part of the job description. This includes things like operating vehicles, desk jobs, etc.

In the military context, almost every job must be performed in the field or in the absence of (working) machinery. You still must be capable of carrying the equipment load-out for your role on your back. The inability of women as a class to do this effectively has been a longstanding issue. Everyone is at risk of being thrust into combat situations due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. The "rear echelon" can suddenly find themselves no longer in the rear.

All of which is separate from the question of the use of conscription generally.

In the US there is a separate gender-agnostic authority that allows the US to impress someone into non-military service for (IIRC) 6 months.

show 1 reply
throwiuhhtoday at 12:18 AM

You sound sexist to assume women lack physical strength. In this day and age they are capable of fighting.

globular-toastyesterday at 5:36 PM

Women have been treated similarly to children. Fewer rights, but also fewer responsibilities. Feminists are very vocal about the rights but not too bothered about the responsibility.

duxupyesterday at 4:59 PM

I suspect the end result is just, no political will for that at this point.

AdrianB1yesterday at 5:51 PM

Because of the equality implementation.

einpoklumyesterday at 4:46 PM

> Why does it exclude women?

In addition to the legal point regarding the constitution: A lot less people in those roles you listed, die. The compulsion is necessary for the state to get enough people to go die - or at least, seriously risk their lives - for it on the battlefield.

umanwizardyesterday at 4:43 PM

There is an actual answer to this, don’t listen to the random people replying saying stuff like “because the CDU is in power” or whatever.

The actual answer is because the constitutional instrument that allows conscription (Artikel 12a Grundgesetz) is explicitly limited to men. Therefore women are not subject to conscription in Germany, unless the constitution is changed.

Perhaps if the constitution were written today instead of in 1949 it would include women too.

show 1 reply
cubefoxyesterday at 4:38 PM

It doesn't even exclude just biological women but everyone who has either "female" or "diverse" in their passport, which, according to current law, can both be biologically male.

show 2 replies
hobofanyesterday at 4:35 PM

Because CDU is the government.

itsyonasyesterday at 4:35 PM

Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.

show 3 replies
jchip303yesterday at 4:35 PM

[dead]

mikkupikkuyesterday at 4:41 PM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
DiscourseFanyesterday at 4:38 PM

I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons:

1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.

2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory.

In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).

show 2 replies