Yes, Women & Feminists Have Performed Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Labor Fighting Against Conscription of Men


There is a common idea that women and feminists have not done anything in order to stop conscription of men. Supporters of female conscription, in particular, say such things as, "Women never cared about us, so why should we care about them?"

This is factually false.

Most people who support drafting men...are men themselves.

"36% of men think the US should have a military draft, a view shared by just 21% of women. Men are also more supportive of requiring U. S. citizens to spend one year in public service."

Women oppose drafting (even men) in much higher numbers than men do, and this has always historically been the case.

I'm aware of the White Feather Campaign by some suffragettes - where they shamed men who did not join the war - but that was only a minority of suffragettes (and, by the way, they supported universal conscription for women too[1]).

A good number of early American feminists were Quakers[2], and Quakers are adamantly opposed to war and conscription[3]. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which originated in the suffrage movement for women, protested against war and conscription, even by contacting Parliament. [4]

[1] "Emmeline Pankhurst [called] for universal compulsory national service for both sexes."




Yes, Women & Feminists Have Performed Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Labor Fighting Against Conscription of Men

New York Radical Women, the radical feminist group that did the “bra-burning” event (the bras weren’t actually burned; they were symbolically thrown in a trashcan [1]), was adamantly anti-war and anti-draft. [2]

The feminist group Women’s Peace Army also participated in anti-conscription campaigns in WWI. [3]

Women Strike for Peace protested against war and conscription, and even developed a counseling center to provide counseling free for draft resisters. These counselors were unpaid & were estimated to have contributed over $1 million in labor. [5] In the late 60s, WSP joined with younger women from other parts of the anti-war movement and Women’s Liberation to organize the first all-women’s march in Washington, D.C. to protest the war. [6]

The feminist group Chicago Voice of Women [7] also fought against conscription and provided counseling to over 100,000 draft resisters and sold multi-colored paper flowers in order to raise money for draft resistance. [8]








I see comments such as this one that was commented on my other MyTake that discussed how drafting women is harmful to men & male conscripts in particular:

"I want women to know what it feels like die on the field... because women... especially feminist women... think of us as second class citizens...

Women are getting drafted and dying on the battlefield. Oh yeah... we need more feminist b^&%$#@ to come fight and die for their country... Haha, women are going to get slaughtered!"

And I'm just like, really?

Women have performed millions of dollars of unpaid labor trying to fight against conscription of men (as proven above)... trying to prevent men from being slaughtered on the battlefield... which was forced upon men by OTHER MEN...

...and this person wants to repay them by wanting THEM slaughtered on the battlefield?

Wow. Just wow.

Yes, Women & Feminists Have Performed Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Labor Fighting Against Conscription of Men
Add Opinion
1Girl Opinion
4Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • MrOracle
    Women have always been more against violence and war than men in general, and until quite recently women depended on men to a MUCH greater extent, so that the loss of her man (husband or son, usually) was a huge hardship on her in ways beyond emotional. That's still true to some extent today, but it was true far more in the past, when women generally couldn't own businesses or property or have bank accounts, etc.

    Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not sure if men have ever accused women of "wishing them off to war" - instead, men simply grow up with the understanding that they, as men, have a duty to serve their country and defend their women and families in the time of war - as has been true for all of human history. We don't generally DESIRE war, we're just practical about the need for bodies when one occurs, and that males are generally the better choice for that job.
    Is this still revelant?

Most Helpful Girl

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • OrdinaryGentleman
    As a world power we don't necessarily have a choice. I think that combat roles can be implemented by both men and women. However, I don't believe in the idea that we need to change the whole grammatical bullshit from say someone being a Infantryman to Infantryperson. Im all for conscription, if women wanna go die then by all means, enjoy.
  • HonestWhiteGuy
    And I can protest against the sky being blue.

    It doesn't change the fact that when a war breaks out is going to be men dying on the frontlines for our country, as its always been.
    Like 3 People
  • Fathoms77
    I think it's generally well known that many female-driven movements have indirectly supported men, just because the core message was universal (i. e., peace). :)