5 ms·

Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight

Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.

junofan 6mo ago
The guys who are willing to shoot people will win that argument every time tbh.
unsupp0rted 6mo ago
That's a non-sequitur to the question. And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again
- itsyonas 6mo ago
  > That's a non-sequitur to the question. How so? Why isn't the question 'Why is anyone being forced at all?' Their question assumes that someone has to be forced, which I fundamentally disagree with, so they should justify that assumption first. > And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again Correct. They are equal, so I don't think either men or women should be forced.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  Well women are the rate limiting factor in having more men produced for war fodder. It probably makes more sense to ban birth control at the same time men are required to die for the war machine as both would then be playing out their slavery-induced biological role in ensuring survival of the nation. That is if you're down with the whole slavery for war thing.
  - missedthecue 6mo ago
    Biologically true, but probably not in practice. Do we think Ukraine will compell women to repopulate postwar? It won't happen.
    - School-Cotton 6mo ago
      That’s essentially what the commenter is proposing when talking about banning birth control. This would be equivalent to compelling women to reproduce (or forego sexual relations, which in reality most people won’t do).
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Qem 6mo ago
    Wouldn't make more sense instead of make conscription mandatory only for men, to make it mandatory for all childless people then?
  - samus 6mo ago
    Most actively wars are over long before the replacement rate starts to matter, and women that get pregnant or raise children will in all likelihood get an excemption from frontline duty.
- stickfigure 6mo ago
  > women are equal to men in all things, except in extreme circumstances when violence is required on a mass scale Fixed that for you.
  - unsupp0rted 6mo ago
    Not only violence. There are plenty of concerning situations in which you all of a sudden stop putting middle-manager women in email jobs or HR/DEI finger-wagging jobs. When things get existential, the jobs favored by men multiply and the jobs favored by women decrease. And nowhere more than in countries and societies which are highly feminist and supportive of women, which seems counterintuitive but isn't.
throwatdem12311 6mo ago
You might not want to fight in the war but eventually the war might fight you whether you like it or not.
- logicchains 6mo ago
  That's not true. When France surrendered in WW2 most French men didn't have to fight or die (unless they were Jewish).
  - hdgvhicv 6mo ago
    99% of males in the U.K. avoided dying in ww2 - 380k military casualties vs a population of 47 million (and presumably 23.5 million male) I’m assuming non military casualties were evenly spread between male and female.
    - mr_toad 6mo ago
      Figures I’ve seen say over 700,000 casualties in the British Army alone. 3.7 million served in the Army, which is a fairly high proportion when compared to the age range suitable for military service. Add in the Navy and RAF and you get to nearly six million. Those that didn’t serve were generally needed at home - roles like doctors, miners, police, or were too young or too old to fight. The British, unlike many European countries, had time to mobilise those forces. Had they lost the Battle of Britain and had Germany commenced a land invasion of Britain then it’s likely the numbers would have been a lot lower.
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    That was also true of much of the feudal or monarchist European wars in the centuries before WWI. In the near term before the "democratic" era around WWI wars war largely seen as wars of the aristocracy and armed forces. Merchants could usually ~freely come and go between countries at war and you could generally pass to a country you were at war with without common people seeing you as an enemy. Wars also tended to be less "all or nothing" where the other side was evil and had to be destroyed and were seen more as property and rights disputes of the elite where armed force was a negotiating tactic or strategic use to assert some particular right. It wasn't until the scam of 'democracy' fooled people into thinking war was against the actual people of the other country that they not only scammed everyone into having such buy-in and stakes for the war but also to view the other countrymen themselves as the enemy. People started viewing the nation of themselves because their laughable miniscule influence of their vote somehow means the government is of them. (Note this was a resurface of course, there were times in history where war was seen as against a peoples rather than of the elite).

Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.

junofan 6mo ago

The guys who are willing to shoot people will win that argument every time tbh.

unsupp0rted 6mo ago

That's a non-sequitur to the question. And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again

itsyonas 6mo ago
> That's a non-sequitur to the question. How so? Why isn't the question 'Why is anyone being forced at all?' Their question assumes that someone has to be forced, which I fundamentally disagree with, so they should justify that assumption first. > And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again Correct. They are equal, so I don't think either men or women should be forced.
mothballed 6mo ago
Well women are the rate limiting factor in having more men produced for war fodder. It probably makes more sense to ban birth control at the same time men are required to die for the war machine as both would then be playing out their slavery-induced biological role in ensuring survival of the nation. That is if you're down with the whole slavery for war thing.
- missedthecue 6mo ago
  Biologically true, but probably not in practice. Do we think Ukraine will compell women to repopulate postwar? It won't happen.
  - School-Cotton 6mo ago
    That’s essentially what the commenter is proposing when talking about banning birth control. This would be equivalent to compelling women to reproduce (or forego sexual relations, which in reality most people won’t do).
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- Qem 6mo ago
  Wouldn't make more sense instead of make conscription mandatory only for men, to make it mandatory for all childless people then?
- samus 6mo ago
  Most actively wars are over long before the replacement rate starts to matter, and women that get pregnant or raise children will in all likelihood get an excemption from frontline duty.
stickfigure 6mo ago
> women are equal to men in all things, except in extreme circumstances when violence is required on a mass scale Fixed that for you.
- unsupp0rted 6mo ago
  Not only violence. There are plenty of concerning situations in which you all of a sudden stop putting middle-manager women in email jobs or HR/DEI finger-wagging jobs. When things get existential, the jobs favored by men multiply and the jobs favored by women decrease. And nowhere more than in countries and societies which are highly feminist and supportive of women, which seems counterintuitive but isn't.

throwatdem12311 6mo ago

You might not want to fight in the war but eventually the war might fight you whether you like it or not.

logicchains 6mo ago
That's not true. When France surrendered in WW2 most French men didn't have to fight or die (unless they were Jewish).
- hdgvhicv 6mo ago
  99% of males in the U.K. avoided dying in ww2 - 380k military casualties vs a population of 47 million (and presumably 23.5 million male) I’m assuming non military casualties were evenly spread between male and female.
  - mr_toad 6mo ago
    Figures I’ve seen say over 700,000 casualties in the British Army alone. 3.7 million served in the Army, which is a fairly high proportion when compared to the age range suitable for military service. Add in the Navy and RAF and you get to nearly six million. Those that didn’t serve were generally needed at home - roles like doctors, miners, police, or were too young or too old to fight. The British, unlike many European countries, had time to mobilise those forces. Had they lost the Battle of Britain and had Germany commenced a land invasion of Britain then it’s likely the numbers would have been a lot lower.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  That was also true of much of the feudal or monarchist European wars in the centuries before WWI. In the near term before the "democratic" era around WWI wars war largely seen as wars of the aristocracy and armed forces. Merchants could usually ~freely come and go between countries at war and you could generally pass to a country you were at war with without common people seeing you as an enemy. Wars also tended to be less "all or nothing" where the other side was evil and had to be destroyed and were seen more as property and rights disputes of the elite where armed force was a negotiating tactic or strategic use to assert some particular right. It wasn't until the scam of 'democracy' fooled people into thinking war was against the actual people of the other country that they not only scammed everyone into having such buy-in and stakes for the war but also to view the other countrymen themselves as the enemy. People started viewing the nation of themselves because their laughable miniscule influence of their vote somehow means the government is of them. (Note this was a resurface of course, there were times in history where war was seen as against a peoples rather than of the elite).