[ap99]

Women can help the front line fighters but if I was running a country I would not want to put a large number of women on the front, especially young women.

Sure they can fight and kill.

But a country that loses its ability to make more people won't last longer than a generation.

Two things a country needs from which all other needs derive: people and a border that can be defended.

Men historically get sacrificed to protect the border. And women "sacrificed" to make more people.

Food, entertainment, religion, government, taxes, education, etc... it's all to serve those two fundamental requirements.

[benterix]

> And women "sacrificed" to make more people.

By and large, women stopped "sacrificing" a while ago, globally - or at least reduced it by large numbers.

Which is completely fine.

But it makes the original point moot.

[ap99]

It's fine for now. Fast forward even 100 years and tell me what population numbers look like.

Then another 100 years.

[joquarky]

That's a big fat zero for both.

[illiac786]

And men did the same, no?

[asksomeoneelse]

If you are okay with men being forced to go to war by laws, are you also okay with women being forced to "make more people" by laws ?

[vocram]

I hate to call out the obvious, but sacrificing is mandated by laws only in one case.

[illiac786]

“By law“ is funny, as if it was all a legal case. I’m sure Putin respects all international laws.

[BikDk]

Come visit us, we got Germans of every race and color.

[charlie90]

Why make more people? Just import more immigrants to make up for the losses, it's the neo liberal way.

[nozzlegear]

This but unironically. Immigration is good, actually.