3 ms·

There isn't even a Russian article for that article in Wikipedia. You're the one reading propaganda, not me. Communist state propaganda was the very opposite to

by m0zg 8y ago

There isn't even a Russian article for that article in Wikipedia. You're the one reading propaganda, not me. Communist state propaganda was the very opposite to "women at home" propaganda. Women were portrayed as working at the factory, in the field, and in general as equals of men. In fact it very much reminds me of the feminist propaganda you see in the US today. The state decimated by revolution and civil war needed all the workforce it could get. In the 30's "women not dying in a war" was common sense, not propaganda. I don't get why it's not common sense to you in 2019. Everyone knows about Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya in Russia (well, maybe not current generation, but my generation for sure), and about the occasional sniper or pilot. That doesn't change the fact that women were a tiny minority of the forces in combat, and that is how it should be, because women are demographically far more precious than men. Consider that children also volunteered, and served on the front lines and as partisans. It was a tiny percentage but there were probably more of them there than women, and more than enough to fill up a Wikipedia article. Surely you aren't going to argue that children should go to war just on that basis?

eesmith 8y ago
Oh, yes, I'm certain that I'm reading propaganda. My country has all sorts of propaganda about its own history. I think all countries do. Including the USSR. I also know that that propaganda changes over time. So since you think you aren't reading propaganda, I don't think you are skeptic enough. My question again is, if women must not be conscripted in order to save their wombs for postwar repopulation efforts, why should women even be allowed to volunteer? If women can volunteer, why can't they also be conscripted? As I point out, conscription doesn't require that everyone see combat duty. I already pointed out that the percentage was tiny. I quoted "roughly 3 percent of total military personnel", and the source describes that many of them were medical personnel, not combatants. But there were volunteer combatants, and my point was to show that you were wrong about the non-existence of volunteers. I think "people not dying in a war" is common sense. How about "avoid wars". My country - I am a US citizen - loves going to war. It's been at war for 93% of its existence. I can only conclude that my view isn't that common. The US also has a history of children lying about their age in order to volunteer in the military. But I don't why we should compare the decisions and actions of adult women with that of minors. (To be clear, the US allows 17-year-old minors to join the military with parental consent. That's how my wife enlisted.) In the US, which is currently an all-volunteer force, woman can volunteer for combat duty in the military. Children under 17 cannot. The question is, since adult men are required to register in case there is a draft, why shouldn't adult women also be required to register? Even if there is a draft, it doesn't require that all or even most women must fight in hand-to-hand combat, or other places where they are physically unqualified to work.

by m0zg 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

Oh, yes, I'm certain that I'm reading propaganda. My country has all sorts of propaganda about its own history. I think all countries do. Including the USSR. I also know that that propaganda changes over time. So since you think you aren't reading propaganda, I don't think you are skeptic enough. My question again is, if women must not be conscripted in order to save their wombs for postwar repopulation efforts, why should women even be allowed to volunteer? If women can volunteer, why can't they also be conscripted? As I point out, conscription doesn't require that everyone see combat duty. I already pointed out that the percentage was tiny. I quoted "roughly 3 percent of total military personnel", and the source describes that many of them were medical personnel, not combatants. But there were volunteer combatants, and my point was to show that you were wrong about the non-existence of volunteers. I think "people not dying in a war" is common sense. How about "avoid wars". My country - I am a US citizen - loves going to war. It's been at war for 93% of its existence. I can only conclude that my view isn't that common. The US also has a history of children lying about their age in order to volunteer in the military. But I don't why we should compare the decisions and actions of adult women with that of minors. (To be clear, the US allows 17-year-old minors to join the military with parental consent. That's how my wife enlisted.) In the US, which is currently an all-volunteer force, woman can volunteer for combat duty in the military. Children under 17 cannot. The question is, since adult men are required to register in case there is a draft, why shouldn't adult women also be required to register? Even if there is a draft, it doesn't require that all or even most women must fight in hand-to-hand combat, or other places where they are physically unqualified to work.