this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
72 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1939 readers
499 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Deceptichum@quokk.au
Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com
72
Facing threats of war, Denmark turns to a new weapon: women (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone to c/world@quokk.au
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Swede here, makes perfect sense, a woman can aim and pull the trigger just as easily as a man.

I had to show up for mustering back in 2006 or so, I failed the hearing test and didn't do military service.

Back then only men HAD to muster, women were allowed to, then the government removed conscription and moved to a professional military.

However as tensions in the region conscription has been reinstated, but works in a different way.

Now you get a form to fill out in the year you become 18 regardless of gender, it is required to fill out the form, and if the military is interested in you, you will be called to muster, passing that, you will be selected for military service.

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Not only can women easily pull a trigger, on average the are more accurate when they do.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 weeks ago

My dad sold railway signaling systems before he retired, he sold a system to a mine, and when there he found out that they only used women to man the computerized loading system for loading minecarts with ore.

This was due to them being more accurate than men, but also for having less of a competitive drive to fill each cart up with too much ore, and wasting material and time, as we men tended to do.

I am a man, and these differences are fascinating to learn about.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

In WWII women were often assigned as snipers in the Soviet army exactly because of that.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Accurately shooting a rifle is a specialized skill and only very few soldiers train to do this. Few soldiers get killed by rifle fire. Artillery, drones, air strikes kill far more. The ability to carry heavy stuff over long distances is a key ability for many soldiers.

There are numerous jobs in the military where physical strength and endurance is less important. For every soldier on the frontline, there are ten behind the lines. Administration, service, repairs, medical, entertainment, training, infrastructure, intelligence, communications, any type of job that’s mainly using machines.

Infantry and sappers are the role where this makes the biggest difference. If a tank driver, pilot, or mechanic is a woman, the difference is minor.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm Finnish and did do my service, and we had quite a few women.

Most women get placed as drivers or leaders, but "enlisted" ranks (sergeant etc) instead of officers. This isn't to do with sexism, well mostly not, it's just that the officer training really is also physically very demanding and goes by scores from all sorts of different tests (mostly physical) so usually they don't end up there.

However I do have a slight issue with your plain statement of "a woman can aim and pull the trigger just as easily as a man" because you're implying a frontline soldier, and that shit is physically demanding. Google "syöksyen eteenpäin" or "tetsaus". Basically a fronline soldier is equipped with some 10-15kg of gear and a rifle and you have to be able to crawl then jump forward, then crawl then jump forward, and that's your method of progressing through the territory under enemy fire. And if your fighting partner (fighting partners arr the smallest unit, below a squad) or squadmate of 100kg gets shot, you are supposed to be able to evacuate them.

And while I could list a lot that the women did better then men or at least as well (most), evacuating men isn't one of the things they're really as good as. Ofc there are small men as well, but there's no denying the difference in muscle strength, and the scrawniest guys usually wouldn't necessarily be in the frontlines if there was a better place to put them.

Which is why most of the women I served with ended up as things which aren't frontline soldiers. Drivers and leaders of supply and medical squads. Ofc there might be fighting but it's less likely.

Which I think is pretty good, as, well, I'm not gonna argue women are better at organisational stuff (I think they might be but positive sexism is still sexism), but they're definitely not worse than men. So makes sense to use them where their strengths shine and weaknesses don't show.

In Finland every male musters the year they turn 18 and roughly 75% end up going through military service all the way.

But yeah in like >90% of stuff definitely equal. But no they weren't better shots despite the myth. Although my sample size was only a dozen or two but none of them were especially crack shots. They weren't bad but they weren't anything special either

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you took my comment a bit too serious, I obviously realize that men are more physically capable in terms of raw power.

You post did make me think about how tactics would shift if focused on the strengths of women, I would imagine them being slower and sneakier, with lighter armored but more specialized soldiers.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I would imagine them being slower and sneakier, with lighter armored but more specialized soldiers.

Again, you're really thinking of frontline soldiers, which is kind of a small part of the jobs in the military. And you're pretty much thinking of the army(and/or marines).

I'd say that women are people, like men, and like men, they have more individual strengths and weaknesses than they do as a group. Military is just built around the physicality of men, but most of the taller girls kept up pretty well, just like it was easier for the taller guys to keep up with things.

And the reason the girls usually didn't get placed in the frontline groups was that those are the shortest and easiest to train, and every one of those women volunteered, so they're didn't want to just take the shortest and simplest way out (as the training and thus service time for basic infantry was months shorter).

Also I know of at least one girl who was an infantry squad leader (leader of a jaeger squad jääkärialikersantti) and went off to become an infantry officer after her service. She tried getting in the first time, but as her tests weren't in the top, she wasn't accepted, but everyone can go through the training after their service with the next group of arrivals if they so choose and fulfill certain requirements. So she should be an officer now. Last saw her some 16 years ago when she went off to the after-service officer course. So I'd reckon she might be a lieutenant or even an overlieutenant or maybe even a captain if she's been actively going to reserve drills. Probably not, but at least a vänrikki (one under lieutenant, ~ensign, nato rank OF-1)

But like my point is that they're really not that different.

One thing I did kinda dislike though is that the physical requirements were less for women than men. Because I think they should be set by objective needs and not just be scoring the physically best of each sex.

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Woman definitely can serve and general training for everyone is not a bad idea so that people could try and understand if they like it.

But as far as the real war goes, you won't mobilise womans unless they have very specific skills (medics, mostly), cause someone needs to take care of the children.

Gender equality isn't a top priority during the war, I guess.

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

someone needs to take care of the children

This is what fathers do as well

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not if they are mobilised too.

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You've kinda fucked yourself over if all the parents are away shooting other people

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

When it comes to mobilisation, we are talking about nonvoluntary service. The mobilisation rules need to be simple and easily enforced. So yeah, the simplest way to avoid both parents to be forcefully mobilised is to do this on men only, and add a clause about a single parent in case mother died or is in service.

Otherwise I can't see how it isn't gonna be a mess.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol, you really are woooshed about gender equality?

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Explain your point