Introduction
National service is one of the most significant obligations a state can impose on its citizens, demanding years of service and carrying risks to life and limb. In countries like Singapore, Israel, and South Korea, where conscription exists, it is overwhelmingly men who bear this burden, raising fundamental questions about gender equality and the fair distribution of civic duties. This essay argues that men and women should serve equal time in national service because gender equality demands equal obligations as well as equal rights, and because modern national defence requires diverse contributions that women are fully capable of providing.
Gender equality requires equal obligations, not just equal rights
Explain
A coherent commitment to gender equality cannot selectively apply equality only when it benefits women while exempting them from burdensome obligations imposed on men. If men and women are truly equal citizens, they should bear equal civic responsibilities, including national service. Exempting women from conscription implicitly reinforces the outdated notion that women are less capable or less obligated to contribute to national defence.
Example
In Singapore, male citizens serve two years of full-time National Service followed by annual reservist obligations until the age of 40 or 50, while women face no such requirement. This represents a significant gender-based disparity in civic obligation that affects men's education timelines, career progression, and personal freedom. AWARE Singapore has acknowledged this disparity but has not campaigned for the extension of NS to women, drawing criticism for selectively pursuing equality. In contrast, Israel requires both men and women to serve in its national defence forces, with men serving 32 months and women serving 24 months, demonstrating that gender-inclusive conscription is practically achievable.
Link
The principle that equality entails equal responsibilities as well as equal rights provides a compelling foundation for requiring men and women to serve equal time in national service, as selective equality undermines the very concept it claims to uphold.
Modern national defence encompasses roles that women can perform equally well, making gendered exemptions unjustifiable
Explain
The traditional justification for exempting women from military service rested on assumptions about physical strength and combat roles. However, modern national defence encompasses a vast range of functions including cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, logistics, communications, medical support, and civil defence, many of which have no physical strength requirements. Excluding women from national service wastes a massive pool of talent that could strengthen national defence capabilities.
Example
In the Singapore Armed Forces, the range of vocations has expanded dramatically to include cyber defence, psychological operations, and unmanned systems operation, roles for which physical strength is irrelevant. The SAF's own recruitment of female regular servicewomen into these roles demonstrates that women are fully capable of contributing. In the United States, the Pentagon opened all combat roles to women in 2015 after studies showed that integrated units performed effectively. Norway introduced gender-neutral conscription in 2015, becoming the first NATO country to conscript women on equal terms, and its military has reported improved performance and cohesion as a result.
Link
The diversification of modern military roles beyond physical combat removes the primary justification for gendered exemptions from national service, strongly supporting the case for equal service obligations for men and women.
Unequal national service obligations create tangible socioeconomic disadvantages for men that perpetuate gender inequality in reverse
Explain
Compulsory national service imposes significant costs on those who serve, including delayed entry into higher education and the workforce, lost earnings, and disrupted career development. When only men bear these costs, it creates a structural disadvantage that affects their lifetime earnings, career progression, and personal development relative to women, who can begin their education and careers two or more years earlier.
Example
In Singapore, male university graduates enter the workforce at approximately 25 or 26 years of age, two years later than their female counterparts who are not required to serve NS. A 2019 study by the Institute of Policy Studies estimated that the opportunity cost of two years of NS, including foregone wages and delayed career progression, amounts to approximately S$100,000 to S$200,000 over a male Singaporean's lifetime. This delay also affects men's ability to purchase HDB flats and start families, as BTO application eligibility and financial readiness are pushed back. In South Korea, similar concerns have fuelled growing resentment among young men, with surveys showing that over 80% of Korean men in their 20s oppose the exemption of women from military service.
Link
The significant socioeconomic costs borne exclusively by men due to unequal national service obligations represent a clear form of gender inequality that can only be addressed by equalising service requirements, reinforcing the argument for equal time in national service.
Counter-Argument
Opponents of equal national service argue that biological differences in physical strength and injury susceptibility make identical requirements impractical, and that women already shoulder disproportionate burdens in unpaid caregiving, spending an average of 25 hours per week on domestic labour in Singapore compared to 14 hours for men. They contend that the enormous infrastructure costs of conscripting all women would be better spent on targeted measures like expanded childcare and workplace fairness legislation.
Rebuttal
However, this argument relies on an outdated conception of national service as purely physical combat. Modern defence encompasses cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, logistics, medical support, and unmanned systems operation, roles for which physical strength is irrelevant and in which women already serve as regular servicewomen in the SAF. Norway introduced gender-neutral conscription in 2015 and reported improved military performance and cohesion, proving that equal service is practically achievable. The argument about caregiving burdens, while valid, does not justify exempting women from national service but rather demands that caregiving inequality be addressed in its own right, as unequal NS obligations impose a measurable lifetime opportunity cost of S$100,000 to S$200,000 on Singaporean men.
Conclusion
In a society that espouses gender equality, it is inconsistent and unjust to exempt half the population from the most significant civic obligation imposed by the state. Requiring men and women to serve equal time in national service would advance genuine equality, strengthen national defence with a larger and more diverse pool of talent, and send a powerful signal that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship apply to all. While implementation would require thoughtful adaptation, the principle of equal service is sound and overdue.
Introduction
While the principle of gender equality is widely supported, the question of whether men and women should serve equal time in national service is more complex than a simple appeal to equal treatment might suggest. Biological differences, existing social structures, and the practical realities of military readiness all complicate the case for identical service requirements. This essay argues that men and women should not be required to serve equal time in national service, as a rigid application of formal equality would ignore legitimate differences and could undermine both military effectiveness and broader social objectives.
Biological differences between men and women make identical service requirements impractical and potentially counterproductive
Explain
While gender equality is an important principle, men and women have measurable physiological differences in areas such as upper body strength, aerobic capacity, and injury susceptibility that are relevant to certain national service roles, particularly combat and physically demanding vocations. Imposing identical requirements could result in higher injury rates among female conscripts and potentially compromise unit effectiveness in roles where physical capability is critical.
Example
A 2015 study by the United States Marine Corps found that all-male infantry units outperformed mixed-gender units on 69% of combat tasks evaluated, with the greatest differences in tasks involving load-bearing and physical endurance. Female Marines sustained musculoskeletal injuries at more than double the rate of male Marines during infantry training. In the British Army, the introduction of gender-neutral fitness standards led to a significant increase in injury rates among female recruits, prompting a review of training protocols. These findings suggest that while women can and do serve effectively in many military roles, identical physical standards and service duration may not be appropriate for all vocations.
Link
The measurable physiological differences between men and women, and their demonstrated impact on injury rates and performance in physically demanding roles, suggest that mandating identical service time and conditions may be counterproductive and that a more nuanced approach to gender-inclusive national service is needed.
Women already bear disproportionate burdens in caregiving and domestic labour that offset the national service obligation
Explain
Across virtually all societies, women perform a significantly greater share of unpaid domestic and caregiving work than men, a burden that persists throughout their lives and has measurable economic consequences. Imposing an additional national service obligation on women without first addressing this existing imbalance would compound rather than alleviate gender inequality, as women would be expected to bear both the new obligation and the pre-existing domestic burden.
Example
In Singapore, a 2019 study by the Ministry of Social and Family Development found that women spent an average of 25 hours per week on housework and caregiving, compared to 14 hours for men, even when both partners were in full-time employment. Globally, the International Labour Organisation estimates that women perform 76.2% of all unpaid care work, equivalent to an economic value of US$10.8 trillion annually. In Japan, the burden of caregiving for ageing parents falls disproportionately on women, contributing to one of the lowest female workforce participation rates among developed nations. These existing gendered burdens must be factored into any assessment of whether equal national service time is truly equitable.
Link
The disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work already borne by women represents a significant unrecognised civic contribution, suggesting that formal equality in national service time would not produce substantive equality and could in fact deepen existing imbalances.
Equal national service time may not be the most effective use of national resources or the best path to gender equality
Explain
Conscripting the entire female population for equal national service time would involve enormous costs in terms of infrastructure, training, and administration, resources that might be better directed towards other measures that more effectively advance gender equality. Expanding childcare, closing the gender pay gap, and increasing women's representation in leadership may produce greater equality gains than mandating military service.
Example
In Singapore, the government has invested significantly in enhancing paternity leave from one week in 2013 to four weeks in 2024 under the Government-Paid Paternity Leave scheme, encouraging greater sharing of caregiving responsibilities between men and women. The SG Women's Development White Paper published in 2022 identified 25 action plans to advance gender equality, including strengthening workplace fairness legislation and expanding support for women in STEM fields. These targeted measures arguably do more to advance substantive gender equality than extending NS to women would. Norway's experience with gender-neutral conscription, while successful militarily, has not significantly narrowed its gender pay gap or shifted domestic labour distribution, suggesting that equal national service alone does not produce broader gender equality.
Link
The significant financial and social costs of implementing equal national service time for women, combined with the availability of more targeted and effective measures for advancing gender equality, suggest that mandating equal service is not the most pragmatic or impactful approach to achieving the goal of true gender parity.
Counter-Argument
Proponents of equal service argue that gender equality demands equal obligations as well as equal rights, and that exempting women from NS implicitly reinforces the outdated notion that they are less capable citizens. They highlight the significant socioeconomic costs men bear, including a two-year delay in entering the workforce and an estimated S$100,000 to S$200,000 in lifetime opportunity costs, as well as Israel's successful model of gender-inclusive conscription.
Rebuttal
Yet the pursuit of formal symmetry in a single domain ignores the broader context of gender inequality. Women in Singapore still perform nearly twice as much unpaid domestic labour as men and face an adjusted gender pay gap of approximately 6%, burdens that effectively constitute an unrecognised civic contribution. Norway's gender-neutral conscription, while militarily successful, has not narrowed its gender pay gap or shifted domestic labour distribution, demonstrating that equal national service alone does not produce broader gender equality. A more effective approach would expand service options for both genders while simultaneously addressing the structural inequalities, including inadequate paternal leave and affordable childcare, that perpetuate gender imbalances across all dimensions of life.
Conclusion
While the aspiration towards gender equality in civic obligations is understandable, mandating equal national service time for men and women would be an overly simplistic response to a complex issue. A more effective approach would be to expand the range of service options for both genders, address the disproportionate domestic and caregiving burdens women already shoulder, and focus on creating genuine equality of opportunity across all domains of life rather than imposing formal symmetry in a single area.