[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.