11 ms·
These 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, app
by mc32 2y ago
These 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.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y agoThe genders are not equal, you're operating on fictional premise.
- throwaway22032 2y agoWell that's a bit daft, as men and women are as different as green and blue.
- ok_dad 2y agoHow many people do you think are in the military? It’s way below one percent in the USA. In the last war we fought, we lost barely any soldiers compared to the number deployed. It’s bad that we lost any, but your argument is logically null. Women aren’t just baby machines, in any case. Nothing is being “reversed” it’s just more equal if everyone is registered for selective service.
- brianwawok 2y agoWw2 killed 3% of the earths population. Our bombs are much worse now.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> Our bombs are much worse now. Are you under the impression that we're still doing trench warfare, though? And any big nukes won't be aimed at soldiers.
- xkqd 2y agoTo everyone’s surprise, we still are engaging in trench warfare. Maybe the USA isn’t currently involved in a war where they’re digging and in the trenches, but Eastern Europe right now is proving that trenches aren’t going anywhere.
- hughesjj 2y agoCome to think of it, I'm unaware of any war over the last 100 years between conventional forces that didn't involve trench warfare. The biggest difference/innovation as of late is inverting the trench, bringing the dirt/sandbags above ground instead of the soldiers below ground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I'm unaware of any war over the last 100 years between conventional forces that didn't involve trench warfare Anything involving modern combined-arms warfare. Iraq, for example.
- Log_out_ 2y agocan but dont.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y agoNo, but the Spartans did send their slaves, who outnumbered Spartan warriors 7:1. Spartan women were also somewhat more independent than the women of other Greek city states. Considering Sparta was not a particularly large city-state, and if they didn't control so many other city-states and have such a large cache of slaves, they might have needed to send their women after all. (bot that it matters as we're comparing a 2,500 year old society to a modern day one...)
- blue_dragon 2y agoWould you be ok with mandatory draft registration for women if conscription began with only women aged 36 and above? National fertility would be unaffected, since women of that age rarely have children anyways. Then the draft would be gender-balanced and the war hawks would get more bodies for their machine. Everybody wins.
- mc32 2y agoNot really, a society that sends women to war is more or less a cowardly society dressing it up as equality. What sort of male sends the female to check on the noises that sound like an intruder in the wee hours of the night? Do they set turns and when it's her turn she's gotta check out the noises? Any gal married or shacked up with a guy like that should kick him out before night is over. Can you imagine Paul asking Nancy to check out the basement noises in SF? Also, those war hawks should see duty in the front lines. None of this sitting behind "green zones" directing grunts. Get out there, get in the line of fire. Imagine Washington, Nimitz, Yamamoto, Zhukov, etc., let's just phone it in.
- The_Colonel 2y ago> Not really, a society that sends women to war is more or less a cowardly society dressing it up as equality. Israel is likely the most prominent country sending women to war. I'm eager to call Israel many bad names, but "cowardly" is not one of them. I think it's a worthwhile discussion, but your argumentation seems to be mainly based on stereotypes (women are weak) and some old chivalric ideals.
- xkqd 2y agoI mean, when things go bump on our farm my wife won’t hesitate to grab the rifle and haze a black bear or coyote. I’ll lay down my life for my wife and kids but I assure you she can be as dangerous as the next guy; in general much more. It usually comes down to proximity and appetite.
- tsimionescu 2y agoThis blatant mysogyny is shocking so out in the open. There's nothing "cowardly" about asking a woman to protect her country, or her husband. Not that I support the idea of drafting civilian populations as soldiers in general: it's mostly a way to get innocent people killed and not much more.
- scheme271 2y agoBesides Sparta the starkest example of a slaveholding society and the brutality needed to enforce that, they weren't even all that great militarily. They had a run of one to two centuries where they dominated militarily and then they tended to be mediocre at best. Sparta ended up as a tourist spot for romans to see people in funny costumes and hats.
- 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.