[guerrilla]

Nobody's going to bring up the sexism? I thought feminism was for equality. Why then no complains of not having equal responsibility here?

Just like when Ukraine did this, nobody cared. No complaints in the media at all.

They always want more women in the offices too, never in the coal mines.

[coiduck]

Men in general are more disposable. The human population could be sustained with a smaller number of men than women. Or, from hardly any men and a well-stocked sperm bank.

[xocnad]

The US does not require women to register for the draft. And our current political leadership over the military is actively attempting to take women out of combat and leadership roles.

[dudefeliciano]

[flagged]

[sph]

I wonder how the trans issue will work in this instance.

[cubefox]

People who have "female" or "diverse" in their passport can be biologically male but are are not required to get the military permit.

[pietrod]

I scrolled till this comment on disbelief that everybody fail/pretend not to notice, just incredible.

really for some people the concept of equality is a transaction, when you give me is ok when is my time I'm distracted... "is all a construct" until "this is the traditional way bro come on", disgusting.

[raffael_de]

Also Curds and Israelis prove that women can very well be full on soldiers.

[guerrilla]

Kurds* yes and Sweden as well. I agree, it's not like people are running around swinging broadswords, maces and war axes anymore. Anyone without a disability can run and pull a trigger or do all those technical jobs.

[csa]

> Anyone without a disability can run and pull a trigger

This is very much untrue in terms of being a soldier in a high-functioning military.

Technically, you’re not wrong (at least for lighter weapons). That said, there are many more physically demanding things that are involved in doing infantry things (which is what you’re describing) other than running and pulling a trigger (and ideally hitting the target).

> or do all those technical jobs.

Depends on the job, but much more likely.

The vast majority of the jobs in the military are not infantry or infantry-type jobs, so I can see a lot more scope for drafted women who aren’t cut out for infantry doing these things.

[guerrilla]

> The vast majority of the jobs in the military are not infantry or infantry-type jobs

Exactly.

[MarsIronPI]

Technical jobs yes. Infantry still requires a lot of physical strength. I'd welcome anyone who has that strength to be in the infantry, but anyone who can't, male or female, should not be in the infantry, or any job that might require dragging heavy people or heavy equipment.

[guerrilla]

As it should be.

[croes]

In 2006, the Federal Administrative Court justified the absence of compulsory military service for women in a ruling, citing, among other reasons, that women face greater burdens in the domestic sphere than men and that this alone would justify their exemption from military service obligations. So military service is seen as a service like healthcare and care services where women already do most of the work, mostly privately and unpaid.

[guerrilla]

> unpaid

Right, completely unpaid, which is why most women are homeless and starving on the street.

[croes]

Right, completely unpaid, which is why most women who take care of family members don’t acquire any pension and social security benefits for that work. That’s why many of them don’t have the time for a full time paid job and either work part time or don’t have a job at all.

[guerrilla]

They have a job and they are paid for it. They also do have pensions and social security benefits: through their husbands. If the husband remains alive, they continue to be paid as they were before retirement. If he dies, they often inherent his pension and assets. It's a terrible system and we need to modernize it but you're still wrong on all of your points.

[croes]

No, they are not paid. Their husbands get paid, they have all the pensions and social security benefits, not them.

Means total dependence on their husbands. If they get a divorce they have nothing.

[guerrilla]

> If they get a divorce they have nothing.

In a divorce, they typically get half of all assets, child support and alimony. Like I said, it's a terrible system, but you're also terribly misinformed.

[dudul]

Sure, it is well known that in a divorce women just walk away with nothing /s

A quick google search shows you that the average is 50/50 when it comes to the division of the assets.

Why do you feel the need to lie about something so easy to verify?

[allan_s]

But then we also can't request 50% of CEOs being women or any job with that arguments ? Wouldn't it be more fair to be excused if you actually can prove that you're taking care of familly members regardless of man/woman ? Why would a perfectly able 20 year old woman be excuzed by default based on her sex ?

[croes]

You are excused from military service if you have to take care of family members, but it’s so rarely done by men compared to women that it is less work to handle the exceptions than changing the law and create more paperwork

[dudul]

You got to admire the fantastic mental gymnastic some people are able to pull off to evade the arrows of accountability and integrity...

[croes]

I more astound by the mental gymnastics how people can point at every single thing where women get an advantage but at the same tome ignore all the others where they are still disadvantaged

[dudul]

The difference is the "de facto" advantages - provided by nature for example - and "de jure" advantages - when the law is not the same for everyone.

I happen to believe it is pointless to "fight" the former, while governments/societies who put in place the latter are just hypocrites.

But hey, don't let facts and logic stop you in your crusade :)