10 ms·

I think most societies throughout history have had the same intuition about young men. Quite recently the Ukraine was drafting young men. If they decided to ch

I think most societies throughout history have had the same intuition about young men. Quite recently the Ukraine was drafting young men. If they decided to check out en-masse, there would be no country called Ukraine anymore. Society is a fragile thing.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> If they decided to check out en-masse They are literally forbidden to leave the country (only men, 18-60yo, with some exceptions [0]). It's not men choosing not to check-out, it's literally men being forced to die for a piece of land they might not even care for. [0] https://visitukraine.today/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man-can-leave-ukraine-under-martial-law https://visitukraine.today/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man-ca...
- lazide 4y ago
  It is society trying to protect and sustain itself. And frankly, what other options are there?
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    > And frankly, what other options are there? Say "fuck it", let the politicians fight it by themselves, survive, and wave the whatever flag is the winning one in the end. Or let the volunteers fight, preferably in open fields somewhere. Who cares, it's just some lines on the map. If you're bothered by those, you can can still volunteer.
    - lazide 4y ago
      So every Ukrainian should bail because ‘politicians’ and ‘lines’, give up their heritage, their friends and neighbors, and any wealth and property they can’t carry, and hope they make it over another line (defended by people who actually give a damn), before they get shot for existing? Sounds like it would work for a very small subset of the population, and screw (and likely kill) most everyone else. 1) why should anyone else Ukrainian be okay with that, let alone enable it? 2) the reason cowardice is so frowned upon is the wonton selfishness gets a lot of others killed. Brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, parents. If someone is entangled with society, society is going to entangle with them. And anyone who doesn’t like that, is going to find out pretty quickly what the consequences are.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        You're still allowed to fight and go to war... just don't force ME to die for some lines on paper. Yes, I'll gladly take whatever I have and leave instead of dying in a pointless war. Or stay under a new country. And you're free to die for your country if you want.
        pixl97 4y ago
        It doesn't matter if you're willing to fight and die for some lines on paper, what matters is people are willing to come kill you for possession of those lines.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Most people including armies don't want to kill you, a civillian. Even more so if you move away for the time of the war and then come back after it's over. The problem is, that your own government won't let you leave, will make you fight (and probably die) and imprison you if you desert.
        lazide 4y ago
        If you were in Mariupol, or Bakhmut, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Stalingrad, it sure didn't matter if you were a civilian or not. And hell, all of Eastern Europe during WW2, it barely mattered. When it did, that might mean 'just' getting shot and pushed into a ditch instead of shot and left on the battlefield. And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts - and they don’t want you or some other part bailing and getting them all killed. Though sometimes, even that isn’t enough. In the best case, it's the collective good trying to protect itself. In the worst case, it's the controlling parent dragging you down with them. While certainly a survival strategy for an individual to desert, it has heavy costs - and don't expect any friends in those who are left behind.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  - pnf 4y ago
    What do you mean by "society"? Just a collection of people with a common law? Or is it something more? If it's something more like a culture, then changes may be so drastic as to destroy the old culture from inside. In which case, what exactly is being defended?
    - lazide 4y ago
      Good question, with a billion answers. Practically, it includes the folks entangled with others under a specific label, under the putative control of an entity which is able to exercise a degree of control over them and others using that label. Usually in strong physical vicinity, but not always. Practically, a lot of us exist in multiple societies. All with benefits, expectations, costs, and penalties. One clear cut and straightforward example of course being something like a Professional Engineer, or a member of the Bar somewhere. But Church for those who go is almost always one. Every country has at least one, with many subdivisions, etc.
      - pnf 4y ago
        Are any of those the sense in which you were using it?
  - dudul 4y ago
    If things are so dire, why aren't women drafted too? Why is anyone allowed to leave the country?
    - lazide 4y ago
      Because they need physically strong folks able to fight in subzero temperatures while carrying heavy equipment, willing to run into enemy fire to save their friends or family despite extreme danger to themselves, with familiarity and ability to live in harsh outdoor conditions (or even enjoy it), and with a willingness to bayonet, shoot, or explode a stranger to death because of the uniform they are wearing (with a minimum amount of duress). They also need folks willing to drive tanks into battle (while going by burning hulks of tanks just like theirs on the side of the road), and handle 100lb shells and fire artillery while being shot at by other artillery, and many other things. They also need people who can handle being yelled at, mentally and physically abused (by modern standards), and given barely the minimum things necessary to survive - sometimes not even that - and still function enough to survive and even do what they are ordered to do, even if it puts them in harms way. Even if it means doing things no one wants to talk about, or even horrible things. Statistically, that means men, especially young men. They did (and probably still do) accept women volunteers. They are out there, but there is not a lot. I can't say I blame them. Some of the videos I've seen, some are holding their own. I definitely respect them for that, they are fighting for what is theirs. It's not a place good for anyone. It is a place some can survive better than others.
      - dudul 4y ago
        I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better. Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.
        lazide 4y ago
        I’ve gone some unusual places, and been lucky enough to meet some very interesting and unusual people - many of them women. One of them is currently a full bird Colonel in the army, another is one of the strongest and fearless big wall climbers I’ve ever seen. Are there women out there who could best your average man, or even an exceptional man in any of the areas I listed? You bet. But there aren’t enough of them to make an army. They’re outliers. And frankly, each of them had to sacrifice so much of what most women value to be that, and have such painful circumstances behind why they chose that path, that it isn’t surprising that is the case to me. And physically, each of them has had to struggle far more than their male compatriots to do it, because there are differences. As to willingness or not - just because someone is drafted, doesn’t mean they won’t own their circumstances and do what needs to be done for the better outcome, even if they don’t like that they are there, or wish they were somewhere else. Frankly, unless you’ve been called upon to do that, you’ll never know if you have that in you. Not everyone does. But running away from it doesn’t help either.
  - esyir 4y ago
    That logic also can go towards the breeding machine side for a population in decline. If men can be drafted to die for the country, can women be drafted to grow it?
    - lazide 4y ago
      Historically? It typically isn’t as formalized in law (though legal recognition of things like ‘it’s impossible to rape your wife’ are quite common in the world, and only stopped being a thing in the US relatively recently). Expectations of women to have kids to grow populations of their societal group still exist, very directly - it’s a core teaching of the Catholic Church, and Islam. Judaism has it as a core requirement for marriage, and rabbis can force a divorce if one or both of a couple is not having sex (which in pre birth control times, is highly likely to result in kids). Most religions have some element of ‘a marriage that doesn’t result in kids isn’t valid’ to some degree. It’s a pretty modern thing that a woman not having kids wouldn’t be subjected to severe social pressure, in one or more forms. And that is without taking in some of the odder cases like Henry VIII. Not unlike a man dodging the draft, frankly, though without the threat of jail time.
lazide 4y ago
Looking at the rawest biological elements - a society without women of child bearing age having kids, won’t be a society very long (a few decades, usually). A society without someone fighting and dying to defend it, can go until someone tries to conquer it - then it can be dead almost instantly without enough people willing to fight, kill, and die defending it. Both of those are real problems. Fighting doesn’t have to be 100% men. But if you draw out a population distribution of various useful attributes (mental, physical, etc.), most men are built for it, and will do it naturally and unprompted, and most women are not. And when you look at what even modern fighting looks like, 99% of the women (and most of the men) are going to be trying to run the other direction. And like in Ukraine, without folks standing, fighting, and dying, not only would Ukraine no longer exist, but the cancer of conquest that would eat anything and everything it can, would just get stronger. And eventually devour everything if left unchecked.
- 20after4 4y ago
  Without people fighting and dying, there would be no conquest.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    True. But those who won't fight and die in order to conquer can still be conquered by someone willing to fight and die to do so. Attacking another country is almost always evil. Defending your own is essential, at least until we get a world without evil people.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Yup. It’s always easier for a people to go ‘down the ladder’ into a more brutal place, than it is to go up it, all things considered. It requires constant work to stop in oneself - and others won’t necessarily see or want to do it. True for people, true for societies too.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

> If they decided to check out en-masse They are literally forbidden to leave the country (only men, 18-60yo, with some exceptions [0]). It's not men choosing not to check-out, it's literally men being forced to die for a piece of land they might not even care for. [0] https://visitukraine.today/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man-can-leave-ukraine-under-martial-law https://visitukraine.today/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man-ca...

lazide 4y ago
It is society trying to protect and sustain itself. And frankly, what other options are there?
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > And frankly, what other options are there? Say "fuck it", let the politicians fight it by themselves, survive, and wave the whatever flag is the winning one in the end. Or let the volunteers fight, preferably in open fields somewhere. Who cares, it's just some lines on the map. If you're bothered by those, you can can still volunteer.
  - lazide 4y ago
    So every Ukrainian should bail because ‘politicians’ and ‘lines’, give up their heritage, their friends and neighbors, and any wealth and property they can’t carry, and hope they make it over another line (defended by people who actually give a damn), before they get shot for existing? Sounds like it would work for a very small subset of the population, and screw (and likely kill) most everyone else. 1) why should anyone else Ukrainian be okay with that, let alone enable it? 2) the reason cowardice is so frowned upon is the wonton selfishness gets a lot of others killed. Brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, parents. If someone is entangled with society, society is going to entangle with them. And anyone who doesn’t like that, is going to find out pretty quickly what the consequences are.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      You're still allowed to fight and go to war... just don't force ME to die for some lines on paper. Yes, I'll gladly take whatever I have and leave instead of dying in a pointless war. Or stay under a new country. And you're free to die for your country if you want.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        It doesn't matter if you're willing to fight and die for some lines on paper, what matters is people are willing to come kill you for possession of those lines.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Most people including armies don't want to kill you, a civillian. Even more so if you move away for the time of the war and then come back after it's over. The problem is, that your own government won't let you leave, will make you fight (and probably die) and imprison you if you desert.
        lazide 4y ago
        If you were in Mariupol, or Bakhmut, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Stalingrad, it sure didn't matter if you were a civilian or not. And hell, all of Eastern Europe during WW2, it barely mattered. When it did, that might mean 'just' getting shot and pushed into a ditch instead of shot and left on the battlefield. And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts - and they don’t want you or some other part bailing and getting them all killed. Though sometimes, even that isn’t enough. In the best case, it's the collective good trying to protect itself. In the worst case, it's the controlling parent dragging you down with them. While certainly a survival strategy for an individual to desert, it has heavy costs - and don't expect any friends in those who are left behind.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
- pnf 4y ago
  What do you mean by "society"? Just a collection of people with a common law? Or is it something more? If it's something more like a culture, then changes may be so drastic as to destroy the old culture from inside. In which case, what exactly is being defended?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Good question, with a billion answers. Practically, it includes the folks entangled with others under a specific label, under the putative control of an entity which is able to exercise a degree of control over them and others using that label. Usually in strong physical vicinity, but not always. Practically, a lot of us exist in multiple societies. All with benefits, expectations, costs, and penalties. One clear cut and straightforward example of course being something like a Professional Engineer, or a member of the Bar somewhere. But Church for those who go is almost always one. Every country has at least one, with many subdivisions, etc.
    - pnf 4y ago
      Are any of those the sense in which you were using it?
- dudul 4y ago
  If things are so dire, why aren't women drafted too? Why is anyone allowed to leave the country?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Because they need physically strong folks able to fight in subzero temperatures while carrying heavy equipment, willing to run into enemy fire to save their friends or family despite extreme danger to themselves, with familiarity and ability to live in harsh outdoor conditions (or even enjoy it), and with a willingness to bayonet, shoot, or explode a stranger to death because of the uniform they are wearing (with a minimum amount of duress). They also need folks willing to drive tanks into battle (while going by burning hulks of tanks just like theirs on the side of the road), and handle 100lb shells and fire artillery while being shot at by other artillery, and many other things. They also need people who can handle being yelled at, mentally and physically abused (by modern standards), and given barely the minimum things necessary to survive - sometimes not even that - and still function enough to survive and even do what they are ordered to do, even if it puts them in harms way. Even if it means doing things no one wants to talk about, or even horrible things. Statistically, that means men, especially young men. They did (and probably still do) accept women volunteers. They are out there, but there is not a lot. I can't say I blame them. Some of the videos I've seen, some are holding their own. I definitely respect them for that, they are fighting for what is theirs. It's not a place good for anyone. It is a place some can survive better than others.
    - dudul 4y ago
      I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better. Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.
      - lazide 4y ago
        I’ve gone some unusual places, and been lucky enough to meet some very interesting and unusual people - many of them women. One of them is currently a full bird Colonel in the army, another is one of the strongest and fearless big wall climbers I’ve ever seen. Are there women out there who could best your average man, or even an exceptional man in any of the areas I listed? You bet. But there aren’t enough of them to make an army. They’re outliers. And frankly, each of them had to sacrifice so much of what most women value to be that, and have such painful circumstances behind why they chose that path, that it isn’t surprising that is the case to me. And physically, each of them has had to struggle far more than their male compatriots to do it, because there are differences. As to willingness or not - just because someone is drafted, doesn’t mean they won’t own their circumstances and do what needs to be done for the better outcome, even if they don’t like that they are there, or wish they were somewhere else. Frankly, unless you’ve been called upon to do that, you’ll never know if you have that in you. Not everyone does. But running away from it doesn’t help either.
- esyir 4y ago
  That logic also can go towards the breeding machine side for a population in decline. If men can be drafted to die for the country, can women be drafted to grow it?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Historically? It typically isn’t as formalized in law (though legal recognition of things like ‘it’s impossible to rape your wife’ are quite common in the world, and only stopped being a thing in the US relatively recently). Expectations of women to have kids to grow populations of their societal group still exist, very directly - it’s a core teaching of the Catholic Church, and Islam. Judaism has it as a core requirement for marriage, and rabbis can force a divorce if one or both of a couple is not having sex (which in pre birth control times, is highly likely to result in kids). Most religions have some element of ‘a marriage that doesn’t result in kids isn’t valid’ to some degree. It’s a pretty modern thing that a woman not having kids wouldn’t be subjected to severe social pressure, in one or more forms. And that is without taking in some of the odder cases like Henry VIII. Not unlike a man dodging the draft, frankly, though without the threat of jail time.

lazide 4y ago

Looking at the rawest biological elements - a society without women of child bearing age having kids, won’t be a society very long (a few decades, usually). A society without someone fighting and dying to defend it, can go until someone tries to conquer it - then it can be dead almost instantly without enough people willing to fight, kill, and die defending it. Both of those are real problems. Fighting doesn’t have to be 100% men. But if you draw out a population distribution of various useful attributes (mental, physical, etc.), most men are built for it, and will do it naturally and unprompted, and most women are not. And when you look at what even modern fighting looks like, 99% of the women (and most of the men) are going to be trying to run the other direction. And like in Ukraine, without folks standing, fighting, and dying, not only would Ukraine no longer exist, but the cancer of conquest that would eat anything and everything it can, would just get stronger. And eventually devour everything if left unchecked.

20after4 4y ago
Without people fighting and dying, there would be no conquest.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  True. But those who won't fight and die in order to conquer can still be conquered by someone willing to fight and die to do so. Attacking another country is almost always evil. Defending your own is essential, at least until we get a world without evil people.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Yup. It’s always easier for a people to go ‘down the ladder’ into a more brutal place, than it is to go up it, all things considered. It requires constant work to stop in oneself - and others won’t necessarily see or want to do it. True for people, true for societies too.