upvote

points

by xandrius15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby whynotmaybe14 hours ago|
next
[-]
Yes, but in 12 month, 1 man and 20 women can produce the 20 kids.

It's not the case with 1 woman and 20 men.

reply
upvoteby machomaster13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is a birth crisis. Modern, liberal women are not actually reproducing, they are not keeping their end of the evolutionary bargain (men protecting, sacrificing and dying, while women giving birth). Therefore, there is no need to maintain the old-fashioned, patriarchal system with women as a more protected group. Everyone should contribute equally, pull their own weight. Equal rights, equal lefts (responsibilities).
reply
upvoteby xandrius1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
50 men and 50 women. You have to send 50 people to the front. You'd send 49 men, leave one behind for reproduction purposes, have 50 women at home and be short of 1 person.

Or we could embrace equality and send 25 men and 25 women, leaving behind 25 of each to do whatever they want.

reply
upvoteby charlie9012 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Western women are already only producing ~1.5 kids (many with none!), you could send 50% of young women to die in war, then have the other half have a fertility rate of 6, like what their great great grandmothers had, and we would be far far ahead already.
reply
upvoteby dudul5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Oh so now we care about biology, I see.
reply
upvoteby llukas12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Can you share examples of this happening in modern history at scale?
reply
upvoteby samus9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's a thought game, not reality.
reply
upvoteby petre13 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Chill, they will soon send robots because everybody else is going to give'em the finger or they're too slow and hard to replace. Look at Russia/Ukraine. Russia is sending minorities and North Koreans to war and they get blown up by drones assembled and flown by Ukrainians. I would totally assemble drones rather than dig trenches or crawl through mud infested with mines. Guess what the North Koreans are now doing in Kursk? De-mining.
reply
upvoteby mikkupikku14 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
We're not having this conversation in a cultural vacuum; men figure out at a young age that if things go to shit, their lives become expendable for the sake of the community. I view conscription as a form of slavery; something that I hope never happens to me or anybody, but could conceivably happen. That's the way the world has worked for thousands of years, and the Bayesian meme asks me to therefore bet on it continuing to be this way. But it doesn't have to be this way for women too. Why should it be, misery loves company? If men are going to be dying, we should draft women to die too? That's not feminism, that's insanity.
reply
upvoteby machomaster13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Why should men sacrifice and die for nothing, by not getting anything in return, not even a simple appreciation? Why should only men die when things get tough? I also would much rather see other unknown women die, than to send myself or my son to die for them.

Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!

reply
upvoteby AlexeyBelov7 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> What not to love about this equality!

Are you really for equality? Did you support women in this for the last couple of decades? Please be honest.

reply
upvoteby samus9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.

If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?

> And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder.

Women already contribute to society by being in the work force. If you think that's not enough, then you should probably think about rewarding them for doing something else.

reply
upvoteby atmavatar13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> That's not feminism, that's insanity.

No, it's equality.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you cannot have gender equality without either making the draft cover everyone or abolishing it entirely.

The fact that women losing their lives is so much larger a risk for the nation only serves to test the resolve of those people claiming to want gender equality, but this is not the only time you'll find a conflict between idealism and reality, even within the scope of gender equality.

reply
upvoteby snovymgodym12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It would be equality if there were a law forcing women to have children during a war. Which is insane and no one would support it.

But young men maybe dying after being forced to fight against their will? Completely fine.

It's honestly just very telling how in modern Western egalitarianism, gender essentialism is factually wrong and evil unless we're explaining why men need to die for their country.

reply
upvoteby randomNumber712 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Even if you draft women a men can not shit a child.
reply