[orange_joe]

How does feminism survive if this becomes the norm? If young men feel like they're expected to give more to their society it's natural to expect renumeration financial, socially or politically. Nordic countries don't seem to have this problem, but their conscription laws are quite relaxed compared to what the future will likely hold. A declining youth population almost certainly means greater youth repression (higher taxes for pensions, conscription, etc.)

[vidarh]

Norways conscription law was much stricter until very recently. Military police was looking for me to hand deliver my draft notice up until I moved abroad because doing so allows them to charge you and imprison you if you don't show. At the time women were not called in at all. It didn't stop a rapid move towards more equality. And that eventually moved towards more women in the military. Couple that with a reduced need for recruits, and it was relaxed significantly for men.

EDIT: I moved in 2000. I finally took a call from the military police the day I landed in London, to gleefully tell them I'd left - the practice was that draft notices would not be delivered abroad, so moving effectively put an end to the matter. Norwegian law also required notifying the military if you left for more than 6 months, and provide evidence. I sent them a letter; they sent me one back demanding evidence. I told them the fact I'd received the letter was evidence and to stop bothering me. They did.

Basically, for the Americans who find this weird: In the countries in Europe where this is still a thing, this is a cold war holdover most places. When I was growing up air raid sirens were being tested monthly, and my primary schools' basement was a bomb shelter. It took a lot of time before things were relaxed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[dataviz1000]

Being able to serve is something the feminists have been fighting for the hardest over decades. The people who are trying to make young men only doing the killing the norm are the same people trying to end feminism. Therefore, there is some logic in your question.

When I was in Asia two years ago, as an American, every time I met a young Russian man escaping conscription, drinks were on me as appreciation to their commitment to world peace. I'm in South America now and it is being inundated with young Israeli men running like the Russians were. Nonetheless, I'm on the fence about how I feel buying them drinks.

[selfmodruntime]

No. It is not about Ability. Feminism may fight for ability, but conscription is a Requirement. You're not free to choose. That's the entire point.

[dudul]

This is not "being able to serve", this is "being forcefully drafted". Can you share a few links highlighting how vocal feminists have asked for the draft to be extended to women? Thanks.

[baal80spam]

> Being able to serve is something the feminists have been fighting for the hardest over decades.

If any claim ever required "citation needed", this one is the biggest.

I've never seen feminists fight for duties, only for privileges.

[dataviz1000]

I need to revise what I wrote. The protests and stance have all been against selective service for both men and woman. However, on the flip side, the stance for enlisting and volunteering are opposite. I'll let you Google that one to see if you think if "citation needed".

Do you agree that women and men should serve equally in front line combat?

[ngruhn]

> Being able to serve is something the feminists have been fighting for the hardest over decades

Not heard anyone fight for that once. The more pressing issues seem to he "mansplaining" and men being shirtless in the summer.

> Nonetheless, I'm on the fence about how I feel buying them drinks.

Why?

[randomNumber7]

I think it's misleading to credit what is happening in germany to feminism. It's a very toxic ideology and the best thing is to leave if you are discriminated by this (e.g. as young white heterosexual male).

[AlexeyBelov]

It's not a toxic ideology at all. Sounds like you're misinformed by the social media. You should read a couple of books or see talks, or anything apart from Youtube comment section, really.

[sph]

Whatever passes for feminism these days is toxic and a far cry from the idealism and drive for equality that borne it.

These days it’s only social-media driven culture war of hateful men that blame all the problems of the world to women vs hateful women that blame all the problems of the world to men.

The way out is not “manosphere” or “feminism” but understand that 1) we are different despite the claims to the contrary and 2) all are deserving of respect and we need both to have a healthy society.

We won’t get there with DEI initiatives, female quotas and remaking movies with a ‘diverse’ cast, that’s just posturing and stoking the growing fires of culture war to the benefit of social media operators.

[benj111]

How does the concept of the global citizen survive?

You have a group of citizens who are expected to perform military service, and another group who aren't really invested in the country and don't have to serve.

[throw-the-towel]

This concept never existed, it was always an illusion.

[MarsIronPI]

> How does the concept of the global citizen survive?

Why do we need this concept? Find a country you can be proud of, become a citizen, join its culture, and defend it when it is threatened. Don't go live somewhere or get citizenship just because it's convenient.

[benj111]

We don't. But nationalism is out of fashion, there's an expectation that you can move to a different country for work etc.

I agree with you, and I think a lot of the west's issues with immigration stem from not demanding this of immigrants past and present.

But the left isn't engaging with this conversation, and the right are just making hay with the fact that 'immigration isn't working'.

So yes I agree, but that isn't the conversation anyone else is having.

[anal_reactor]

Feminism survives because it never was about equality, it was about making women the privileged class.

[guerrilla]

> Nordic countries don't seem to have this problem, but their conscription laws are quite relaxed compared to what the future will likely hold.

This seems very misinformed at least when it comes to Sweden. Upon war, everyone is obliged to defend the country. Nobody can leave unless you have a good reason.

[peyton]

It won’t and it never has. It’s not like society post-1945 developed the phenomenon for the first time in human history. Even in this country, New Jersey was the last state to ban women voting in 1807 iirc.

[mikkupikku]

How can a state survive if this weren't the norm? Why would men fight and die for a government that views their own wives and daughters as cannon fodder? If the government is conscripting men's wives to war, is it really in the interest of men to risk their own lives to protect that government? If the government took my wife and sent her to war, I'd sooner firebomb a government office than join up to fight for the government.

If a woman wants to fight, that's another story entirely. But conscripting women? That's poison.

[Caius-Cosades]

Why are those women then allowed to have vote in matters if they are not forced to carry responsibility for their voting behaviour?

[randomNumber7]

Because we saw what men do in the last thousand years and if women would be in charge everything would be like the paradise /S

[xandrius]

And what about a government which sends sons? Your point makes absolutely no sense, especially in relation to feminism. Equal rights and equal duties.

[petre]

Chill, they will soon send robots because everybody else is going to give'em the finger or they're too slow and hard to replace. Look at Russia/Ukraine. Russia is sending minorities and North Koreans to war and they get blown up by drones assembled and flown by Ukrainians. I would totally assemble drones rather than dig trenches or crawl through mud infested with mines. Guess what the North Koreans are now doing in Kursk? De-mining.

[whynotmaybe]

Yes, but in 12 month, 1 man and 20 women can produce the 20 kids.

It's not the case with 1 woman and 20 men.

[machomaster]

There is a birth crisis. Modern, liberal women are not actually reproducing, they are not keeping their end of the evolutionary bargain (men protecting, sacrificing and dying, while women giving birth). Therefore, there is no need to maintain the old-fashioned, patriarchal system with women as a more protected group. Everyone should contribute equally, pull their own weight. Equal rights, equal lefts (responsibilities).

[charlie90]

Western women are already only producing ~1.5 kids (many with none!), you could send 50% of young women to die in war, then have the other half have a fertility rate of 6, like what their great great grandmothers had, and we would be far far ahead already.

[xandrius]

50 men and 50 women. You have to send 50 people to the front. You'd send 49 men, leave one behind for reproduction purposes, have 50 women at home and be short of 1 person.

Or we could embrace equality and send 25 men and 25 women, leaving behind 25 of each to do whatever they want.

[llukas]

Can you share examples of this happening in modern history at scale?

[samus]

That's a thought game, not reality.

[mikkupikku]

We're not having this conversation in a cultural vacuum; men figure out at a young age that if things go to shit, their lives become expendable for the sake of the community. I view conscription as a form of slavery; something that I hope never happens to me or anybody, but could conceivably happen. That's the way the world has worked for thousands of years, and the Bayesian meme asks me to therefore bet on it continuing to be this way. But it doesn't have to be this way for women too. Why should it be, misery loves company? If men are going to be dying, we should draft women to die too? That's not feminism, that's insanity.

[machomaster]

Why should men sacrifice and die for nothing, by not getting anything in return, not even a simple appreciation? Why should only men die when things get tough? I also would much rather see other unknown women die, than to send myself or my son to die for them.

Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!

[samus]

The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.

If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?

> And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder.

Women already contribute to society by being in the work force. If you think that's not enough, then you should probably think about rewarding them for doing something else.

[machomaster]

> The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.

This is not an argument, neither from theoretical nor practical point of view. This is akin to saying "Yeah, you want a universal health care for everyone, but I want everybody to be so rich that they can buy any insurance and bear any sudden health-costs". Not an argument, is it.

The reality is the way it is. Wars are always going to be fought and no amount of toxic peace wishing will change that.

If anything, adding women to the equation would:

1. make the force stronger. Therefore, a higher probability of not being attacked, and a higher probability of dominating the enemy (thus decreasing the total amount of victims).

2. make the political decisions to start wars much harder (in a good way).

This is exactly the reason why I am against the current American fight-for-money military and am for compulsory army service (like Finland), and for both sexes at that.

> If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?

That's my point exactly. If women are not doing their evolutionary job, why should men? There can only be 2 possible solutions:

1. no sex has any sex-specific obligations (be it giving birth or going to war)

2. or impose similar sex-specific obligations to both sexes.

Men already contribute to society by being in the work force (and do a much more important foundational work than women), and it is unfair to impose additional unilateral sexist obligations on only one sex.

[AlexeyBelov]

> What not to love about this equality!

Are you really for equality? Did you support women in this for the last couple of decades? Please be honest.

[machomaster]

I am against the hypocrisy and want equality between sexes (they don't have to be the same for both sexes, but if one has more obligations, they should be appropriately compensated by additional rights/privileges).

My morals are not that hard to understand.

[salawat]

[flagged]

[machomaster]

> Because a bunch of pissed off men is destabilizing, and what has worked in the past is sending them off to conquer/die under some glory laced pretense.

Such was the way in the old times. At the same time when women were taking their own feminine role and were giving birth.

But this does not apply anymore. Check the population pyramids for various countries. Having a lot of young men that need their energy to be put somewhere is not a problem in modern Western societies.

[atmavatar]

> That's not feminism, that's insanity.

No, it's equality.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you cannot have gender equality without either making the draft cover everyone or abolishing it entirely.

The fact that women losing their lives is so much larger a risk for the nation only serves to test the resolve of those people claiming to want gender equality, but this is not the only time you'll find a conflict between idealism and reality, even within the scope of gender equality.

[snovymgodym]

It would be equality if there were a law forcing women to have children during a war. Which is insane and no one would support it.

But young men maybe dying after being forced to fight against their will? Completely fine.

It's honestly just very telling how in modern Western egalitarianism, gender essentialism is factually wrong and evil unless we're explaining why men need to die for their country.

[randomNumber7]

Even if you draft women a men can not shit a child.

[missedthecue]

Most young men don't have wives or daughters. It's not 1850 anymore.

I would rather both genders get drafted than be in a Ukraine situation where millions of women leave for richer countries while I am pulled off the street to go eat FPV drones. What's even the point? Why not surrender? What am I protecting or preserving?

[nslsm]

You are protecting a society who doesn’t care about you. Aren’t you glad?

[ashleyn]

This goes missed a lot in debates about conscription. The Iran war in the US and the Ukraine war in Russia enjoy very little popular support among military aged men. This is in stark contrast to WW2, and even in Vietnam there was still a strain of thinking of draft resisters as cowards. But wars in this day and age enjoy a shockingly tiny public mandate, and it's entirely possible that governments can only do a draft on paper. Putin is practically unable to push further mobilisation because the first round provoked such stiff violence and resistance.

[Ylpertnodi]

> What's even the point? Rich people staying in power is the point.

> Why not surrender? Surrendering is not always practicable. You will get killed if you're a liability to your captors.

> What am I protecting or preserving? That's really only yours, and yours alone, to consider.

[rvnx]

There is another option too: cooperate.

Any ruler wants active units of production (humans extracting money or gold or food), and for that it has to bring some sort of stable life environment and not be too greedy so people don't try to revolt.

Whether you get such through political negotiation before or after a war, or through a vote, or through a revolution, is the same as the end.

[ihsw]

How does a state survive if refugees/immigrants are imported en masse and then the state becomes so dysfunctional to such a degree that its male citizens must be conscripted to fight and die for it? Surely this is a recipe for disaster.

I would sooner die for my family and my country but I wouldn't lift a finger to save the lives of refugees/immigrants.

[petre]

You die for your country and the refugees make the state survive. Germany becomes Deutschstan, Köln Dom is converted to a minaret and Hildegard is required to wear a hijab in public at all times, that's how. At least that's probably how Michel Houellebecq would imagine it.

[randomNumber7]

Why not just leave for another more sane country before that happens? It's for sure what I will do.

[pj_mukh]

How does a government express "anti-feminism". Surely you're not suggesting a reduction in voting power for women. So what else would make it seem "fair" to men in your mind?

[nubg]

> Surely you're not suggesting a reduction in voting power for women.

Why not? If the male side has "getting droned your legs off and people watching it in 4k", surely everything less than that has to be on the table for the female side. Not being able to vote physically yourself (you can still influence public opinion, eg through social media, imo a far more effective action than casting 1 vote)

[orange_joe]

I'm not being prescriptive, just observing the likely consequences of gendered policy.

[dwedge]

Why would this affect feminism? If they want to fight for equal rights to conscription nobody is stopping them, and if they don't nobody is going to force them to. These gotchas don't really have any reflection on reality.

[orange_joe]

I am wondering if the affected men will demand preferential treatment as a consequence of service. Women currently benefit from disproportionate employment in the social safety net, affirmative action in German government hiring, etc. I would imagine that this would be essentially offensive to the men who are required to stay in the country, or face (potential future) conscription. I suspect the demands of European governments will increase as countries continue to age.

[randomNumber7]

> I am wondering if the affected men will demand preferential treatment as a consequence of service.

I'm more thinking about leaving asap.

[missedthecue]

I would define feminism as the belief that on balance and in aggregate, there is a difference in the fairness that society accords to the genders and it's in favor of men.

The risk to feminism would be that this becomes so blatantly and obviously not true that no one can take it seriously. I don't think the continued draft of men would impact this because it's not a change to the status quo, and it isn't changing opinion in Ukraine.

[guerrilla]

> and it's in favor of men.

Definitely going to have to disagree there.

[missedthecue]

You disagree with feminists, or you disagree that feminists essentially hold that viewpoint?

[guerrilla]

The former.