13 ms·
From what I’ve heard from people in artillery is that the brass hardly cares about occupational safety. If they need to get rounds down field they get rounds do
by kjkjadksj 2y ago
From what I’ve heard from people in artillery is that the brass hardly cares about occupational safety. If they need to get rounds down field they get rounds down field first and make sure you have proper ppe for that second. And what ppe they do have is seen as improper. Not much you can even do when the issue is local blast damage and the gun design demands you to be so close to it.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoYet another reason to not join the military. You’re just fuel for the machine. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruiting-problem-male.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruit...
- mc32 2y agoThese days we have a senate committee approving a bill that would register women for the draught… it’s getting closer. Men aren’t enough, for this machine, apparently.
- shrimp_emoji 2y agoEquality should mean equality! :D
- mc32 2y agoI hear you. But women can continue the line —society. Men can’t bear children —society dies. Men get sent to war, women stay in the homeland, many of the men may not return and the women may have to persevere, with sacrifice but society can push on. If it were reversed, that society may well collapse. The Spartans didn’t send their women off and let the men stay back in the homeland.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThis sounds like discrimination. Only women can produce offspring? Too bad, so sad. Everyone serves if it is required.
- throwaway22032 2y agoIt doesn't sound like discrimination, it is discrimination, tautologically. The onus is on you to show that it is bad in this case. We discriminate routinely, children are exempt from working for example.
- influx 2y agoCan’t men just identify as women to avoid the draft?
- hashiyakshmi 2y agoNo, changing your gender identity doesn't affect your selective service registration
- raffraffraff 2y agoI'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it's a pretty straight forward question with a non-obvious answer.
- mrguyorama 2y agoEver tried to actually "change your gender"? It's not really a thing you can do any more than "becoming gay" if you are straight.
- ohialehua 2y ago[flagged]
- The_Colonel 2y agoI believe in the specific case of gender equality, the burden of proof is on the side which claims that discrimination is justified.
- moomin 2y agoAsk anyone with half a brain who sincerely believes in gender equality if men should take a pay cut and they’ll say no, women deserve what the men are paid. The draft should work the same way.
- xkqd 2y agoI think that’s what they were saying but their comment was so low quality it’s hard to be sure.
- exe34 2y agoi thought the "gender pay gap" was due to different jobs and amount of time worked - otherwise companies would hire only women and have to pay out way less in wages.
- juliushuijnk 2y agoThis assumes companies are rational actors.
- jajko 2y agoMarket forces, spread over long enough time, are usually a strong force of rationality. So on average, across long time, yes. At least according to the level of contemporary wisdom.
- danaris 2y agoThat assumes that there aren't strong psychological/cultural forces acting against rationality. Like not wanting to hire non-white people. Like not wanting to hire people who are "too old"/"too young" for the field. Like not wanting to punish men who harass women. Like not wanting to make sure that your employees are well-treated, satisfied with their jobs, and healthy enough mentally and physically to concentrate on the job regularly. The idea that The Almighty Market will solve all problems and be perfectly rational is notably unsupported by evidence.
- ceejayoz 2y agoWe haven't drafted people since the Vietnam War. There's plenty of draft fodder to dig into without having to expand the eligibility criteria.
- mc32 2y agoWhich raises the question of why they thought they'd approve this bill in committee? It's still very odd, weird, ungentlemanly and somewhat uncivilized.
- coldtea 2y agoFunnily almost none of the adjectives here fits what's described.
- zo1 2y agoTo follow the analogy, the reason they did it is because the "DEI outrage machine" needs fuel, and this was the next low-hanging fruit. To the machine, women aren't as important as perpetuating itself, so hence we now are starting to get women drafted into traditionally (and oddly, actually gender appropriate) male-roles that are actually dangerous.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> now are starting to get women drafted We haven't even drafted men in fifty years.
- vitus 2y agoEh. Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg) That policy changed by 2016, so the rationale no longer holds. With that said, we also haven't had mandatory conscription since the Vietnam War, and I think it's unlikely that we would any time in the near future, short of WW3 landing on our front doorstep (either directly or as a result of NATO's collective defense clause) -- recall that we didn't formally enter WW2 until after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I recall that the only reason I signed up for selective service was because it was a requirement to receive federal financial aid for college, although it seems that requirement was removed in 2023.
- logicchains 2y ago>Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced.
- sofixa 2y ago> Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced. People keep repeating this, but nobody has so far answered my follow-up question: do you have any example where that actually happened? Even in heavily impacted countries (like Serbia in WWI, which lost around 50% of its prewar male population), there were no laws or campaigns to allow harems or one man - multiple women combinations.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoNot sure why you are getting downvoted. I am aghast with the press-ganging going on in Ukraine. I think if Ukraine can’t motivate volunteers to fight then they must surrender. I get that we (the west) wouldn’t like that but they’re taking volunteers so anyone who wants to fight that war is free to do so. Too many people wanting other people to fight their wars for them. I don’t even like my country, the thought of being press ganged by them would make me like the country even less.
- blackguardx 2y agoBy this same logic, Russia should also surrender.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoI agree, they should
- shiroiushi 2y agoRussia seems to have little trouble forcibly conscripting men from their various territories and sending them to fight.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sofixa 2y agoIt's literally a question of life or death. If Ukraine surrenders, that could very well be the end of the country and ethnic/cultural identity. Look up what happens to Ukrainians captured by the Russian army - rape (irrespective of gender), torture, starvation, daily beatings, etc. Russia has kidnapped hundreds of thousands of kids too. Surrender is not an option. Unfortunately, everyone (men and women included) must do their duty to stop a genocide.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoAre you in Ukraine doing your duty? If you are not Ukrainian they do take volunteers. Surrender is an option, none of those things is worse than death. I would not make that trade. If the Ukrainian men want to stop it they can still volunteer, so can anyone else. And it looks like they will lose the war anyway, so they’ll have to surrender anyway except now after a huge amount of death and destruction. Ukraine is heavily indebted and the belief that some Marshal plan reconstruction would enable them to pay that off is unrealistic.
- Log_out_ 2y agoThats a nice sentiment you got there. Mind if i take it: Every dictator everywhere everytime. And it turns out the international order cant survive defectors.one large party going imperial or isolatinist and its bsck to olden times.
- coldtea 2y agoNot one, but several large parties have been globally "imperial" for centuries. Except if by international order we mean "the will of the stronger dogs imposed upon the whole world, with tons of mayhem and blood, but it's not done to white people so it doesn't matter"?
- FredPret 2y agoUnsubstantiated sensationalism. Violent deaths per capita is trending down both inside states and between states, and has been for nearly a century despite increases in tension and extreme improvements in weaponry.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoNo boots on the ground. Deliver freedom and justice from afar on the business end of a fast moving vehicle, whether that is subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic, or ballistic.
- jojobas 2y agoBecause if the rounds don't fly down field they'll fly back. Shock damage from firing a gun might be bad, damage from incoming shells is much worse.