upvote
You can't have a country that doesn't have conscription in time of war. For example if Russia were to attack which is unlikely but plausible. I don't like conscription at all and it's necessary but still an evil.
reply
Some countries don’t see sex as a criteria for conscription: good job Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_and_sexism

reply
There's a very cold-blooded but good reason why a nation rationally should use men as cannon fodder before women: they are more expendable in terms of reproduction. You need fewer men relative to women. Also, societies with more men than women tend to be unstable and high-crime and whatnot. Societies with more women than men survive a bit better.
reply
> Also, societies with more men than women tend to be unstable and high-crime and whatnot. Societies with more women than men survive a bit better.

Demonstrably false: China and Russia

reply
It is not necessary, because the state has a legitimate right to taxation. Every non-military person in the country can be taxed down to the poverty level to pay volunteer troops. This is morally superior to enslaving people.
reply
I agree. Either that or give men significantly more political power since they are putting their necks on the line.
reply
Political representation in just about every country (including Germany) already skews pretty heavily towards men.

It also turns out that men tend to be more in favor of war than women.

So whether codified in law or not, the power structure is already how you want it to be, and it's more likely to send men to their deaths.

reply
>Political representation in just about every country (including Germany) already skews pretty heavily towards men.

There is absolutely nowhere in the West where this is true. Even the suggestion that a politician advocates for men's rights would be the end of their career, meanwhile they endlessly twerk for women's votes with all of the right campaign promises of cash and prizes. Some countries even now have ministers explicitly representing women.

reply
This is… just false.

The US 2024 election saw the election of a whole regime of very male chauvinistic types, and that’s being as neutral and charitable as I can be.

In the EU there’s a number of fairly far right parties with adjacent views polling well with a chance to win significant representation in future elections.

Asia is very heavily male led, probably more than the West. Same with the Middle East.

Around the world most state and corporate heads and high level bureaucrats are male.

There has been, in the West, a push for more female representation and it has made some headway but the world’s capitols and board rooms are still very much a sausage party.

reply
We need to distinguish between "representation" in the sense of belonging to the group vs advocating for the group.

For example, most politicians in the West are White. However, zero of them dare to openly advocate for White interests. Many of them openly champion the interests of other racial groups, often to the detriment of Whites.

Likewise, most politicians in the West are men. However, zero of them advocate for men. Many of them openly advocate for and prioritise the interests of women. They are quick to condemn any of their peers who might actually represent men's interests.

So, yes, a lot of politicians are White men like me. However, I genuinely feel as if I have zero political representation. Zero. And they take every opportunity at press conferences and photo ops to rub it in my face.

reply