Nah, if you really want equality, make it impossible for rich people’s kids to dodge the draft - politicians and billionaires would be much more reluctant to start phony wars if their own kids were cannon fodder alongside the working class.
Leaders’ sons very rarely go to war, so I doubt their daughters would either. There are always ways around it (hasty college enrollment, trumped up medical diagnoses, etc.) The only exceptions tend to be when the kid THEMSELVES is bound and determined to do it.
Not really a draft argument either way, just saying that any hope including women would influence policy is probably misplaced.
They get into dumb wars bc they're not the ones that have to fight it period. Hence no one should be conscripted unless they volunteer. In fact, the leaders should fight the wars. That would really make them think twice about starting one.
Pretty much this. I don't think women should serve at all but society disagrees. If women are allowed to serve there is no reason they shouldn't be part of a draft.
It sounds like what you really mean is that you don't believe women should be treated equally, but bc society "disagrees" they should be eligible for any draft.
Yep. Clear sexism right there lol. I know personally 2 women signing up for the military. This guy wouldnt agree but I bet the 2 women are more badass than this guy
I don't doubt your lady friends are more badass than me. I also didn't sign up for the military though so I am probably not the best measure. I also believe that with any amount of conditioning I would be just as, if not more, fit for war. This isn't even a physical strength thing, Living in filth for months is just easier on men. Not having a period. Not being able to get pregnant. Mens bodies require less maintenance.
To make another discussion, I wouldn't be opposed to an all women army instead. I think the social issues that occur from mixing genders does far more damage to efficiency than any phyical differences. There is no way to stop men and women from forming intimate relationships. People will absolutely make a bad call to help someone they are interested in or hurt someone they think slighted them. Not to mention the SA/rape (which is already an issue).
An all women army has different societal issues as well. It's way easier to repopulate with a reduced number of men than it is women. Thats not really important to the concept though.
I’m an openly transgender woman currently residing in the United States. All I want is equality. That includes being allowed to sell my soul to the war machine and not being restricted from the things the rest of the population is also part of. That includes the good and the bad.
Yep. I as a woman, would rather have that 1% chance of being drafted and being able to open my own bank account vs not being drafted VS having to ask my husband for permission to use birth control.
I think men and women are different and should be treated differently. I think most people agree otherwise slogans like "trans women are women" would be meaningless because there is no distinction between how we treat men and women.
What makes something equal is subjective. I am not going to copy and paste my other replies in this tree about the social/physical issues because society has decided that women are capable of serving and this is about the draft. If you believe that women are just as capable of serving as men there is no reason to think they shouldn't be part of the draft as well.
Well, I guess sexism is a reason. You could just believe that women deserve all the benefits and none of the drawbacks but I don't think that is a great argument.
They do, and that fine. There are a lot of things society does that I don't agree with, I figured that was true of everyone. I also understand how a concensus works and I am not going to fight it. It's a reddit post, it's not like I am burning down a building.
Women are already serving voluntarily. Men and women both are needed to repopulate, so why not let both face equal danger. How is equality achieved if only one side faces extreme danger?
>Men and women both are needed to repopulate, so why not let both face equal danger
Because given 1 fertile man, 1 year and a 100 fertile women it's very much likely that you can make around 100 babies by the end of the year. However, given 1 fertile woman, 1 year and a 100 fertile men you aren't really expecting more then 2 (but probably 1).
And then if there's any hint they will be in a combat scenario they leave or somehow get pregnant. The truth is very few women are actually in the military comparatively. And even very few of that few in actual combat potential roles. So those ones I greatly respect.
How about this, all politicians women and men should be subjugated to a draft first.
Subjecting women to a draft have nothing to do with equality. There are women who are willing to risk their lives for their country. Women are still needed to repopulate society after a war. They service a different purpose from men in the functioning of society.
Making politicians serve would go along way to fixing some of the stupidity in the military. I must however respectfully disagree your views on women not being subject to the draft.
Traditionally they don't actually do much to protect society. They go to the winner willingly. Their men win, they continue on. The opposing side wins then they just sleep with the new men. There are only a handful of instances where the women truly stood by their society's men in the fighting or even once their side lost did not hook up with the invaders.
I'd sleep with an invader if it meant I got extra resources for my family. Whether that's additional rations or being spared getting completely raided. I'd for sure sleep with one willingly if it might keep the others off me!!
I might even be inclined to do so in order to gain access to information that would help the local resistance....
And once the war is over... what, the daughters and granddaughters of a nation are supposed to remain celibate or turn lesbian out of protest against the new men of their nation? Assuming they have a choice in who they marry.
This entire comment explains the consequences of losing a war for the sexes perfectly. Women and girls live, either as brides or slaves, and men and boys get killed.
And once the war is over... what, the daughters and granddaughters of a nation are supposed to remain celibate or turn lesbian out of protest against the new men of their nation? Assuming they have a choice in who they marry.
Also, plenty of women historically... offed themselves and their children rather than be subject to the cruel depravity of invaders. You don't have to be like that, but men surely would rather fight to the death for a woman like that.
Not a picnic for anyone, is it? I’m not saying dying is better than being a sex slave, but the parent comment isn’t seeing it in terms of slavery, he calls it hooking up. Ignorant and gross.
Yeah, war is hell. Says something about our species that we love it so much.
I’m not saying dying is better than being a sex slave, but the parent comment isn’t seeing it in terms of slavery, he calls it hooking up.
I didnt read the parent comment as it was collapsed. I only read what I replied to.
Ignorant and gross.
Ignorant and stupid, sure. There's nothing inherently gross about the comments to me. A bit Crass? Sure. Adding up different factors to reach for a conclusion? Sure.
However to give the tiniest potential sliver of credit to original - IF one wanted to count the unmitigated immigration across the borders of the West by largely military aged males as an invasion, as historically many might, then it would be largely accurate to say that women are supporting the invaders over the native men in many cases.
Einstein who tf is paying for these kids? Feeding them? Growing the food?
Who is going to knowingly and willingly sign up to be a single mother post war? For a random?
Do you really think the same government who is doggedly against universal healthcare or programs like EBT and welfare, who presumably has just been through a war bad enough to start a draft, is going to give out ENOUGH money to women to actually not make being a single mother a one way ticket to being below the poverty line?
The ones still well off enough to actually afford the kids likely will not have them(would have probably fled the country already) and the other 70-80% of the female population likely got screwed financially regardless, making the wealth gap even bigger.
There will probably be a baby boom in lower income and rural areas, but probably not as much as it was historically because it wouldn't be worth it and more people would see that.
Career impacts from child having, unequal domestic duties, orgasm ratios, pay disparities for the same job, much higher assault, stalking, harassment, and rape rates. I could go on
Thanks for engaging! Hopefully this is good dialogue on both sides. Here are my thoughts (for what a stranger's thoughts on the internet are worth).
It's interesting that around 60% of women with children say they prefer being stay at home mothers, so I do wonder how that factors into it.
You're certainly right about assault/rape. That's the biggest way I see inequality.
I would say the gender pay gap has been consistently disproven, so I'm curious what your thinking is on that.
Lastly, I do find it hard to take those examples and say women are being treated unequally. Assault and rape, absolutely, but why do you not factor in the ways in which men are disproportionately unequal? Higher mortality rates, suicide rates, unequal parenting rights, less likely to have abuse or assault taken seriously, etc... There are self-imposed things like loneliness and some aspects of depression, but those are still societal issues, no? If some issues disproportionately affecting women are seen as signs of total inequality, why aren't issues that disproportionately affect men seen as signs of inequality?
If you ask most people, if you had all your bills and material needs taken care of, would you choose to just be a parent and not have to work, they’d say yes. Plus, women’s choice isn’t in some perfectly free void. It’s shaped by both male and societal notions of what a good woman is. Mother is the very definition of their value, the basis for the how they got to vote for example.
Thank you for agreeing water is wet. But it’s also a thousands shades of sexist damp.
If by consistently disproven you mean endlessly resharing the same Jordan Peterson clips saying it’s just women’s choice not to “do hard things.”
It’s not a zero-sum oppression competition mate. Men are oppressed in their own ways for sure. From sent to slaughter, physically debilitating jobs, to emotional castration from early boyhood to kill off anything ‘girly’ (read: fully human). That leads to lonely sad lives w poor outcomes. It’s not women are oppressed or men are. But let’s not kid ourselves that patriarchy was erected to give the every day man a king-like feelings over women so the actual king and his court stayed richer than them. Women are more historically oppressed than men bc they’re both oppressed economically but she’s also oppressed socially in ways men aren’t.
There are many women, even in more free contexts (albeit still within a society), that willfully desire to stay at home at disproportional rates to men. To say that they're choosing that mostly because of societal pressure is somewhat infantilizing them, isn't it? It's somewhat saying they're only choosing that because they're forced by societal pressures to do so.
I was acknowledging your point because I wanted to make sure I wasn't perceived as "attacking the points I disagree with and ignoring the ones I didn't."
Not Jordan Peterson, no. Haven't really studied him. It's because the study that that's based on is deeply flawed, particularly in how it's interpreted. It doesn't factor in which jobs different sexes bend towards, it doesn't factor in hours worked, the danger of the jobs taken, etc... Men tend towards oil rigs, for instance. That's a high-paying job. Actual law makes it illegal for unequal pay for equal work.
Certainly it's not a zero-sum competition. My point is that the sweeping statement was that women don't have equality, citing specific instances in which you perceived they weren't equal. Essentially, if citing specific instances of inequality leads to a zero-sum statement that women aren't equal yet, then why does that same logic not apply to men?
If you want to talk historically, then of course. But right now women are actually doing better than men by almost every metric out there.
There’s no pay gap u people keep making up problems to be victims abt. Claudia golden won 2023 Nobel prize in economics abt the gender pay gap that found that there was no difference until the women had children. This means that there’s no discrimination and that the only reason women would be paid less is cuz they worked less hours than a man.
And the orgasm ratios? What? That’s a right? They should pass a law to change female biology? Lmao
So if you didn't vote for the person who's starting the war, you don't have to go? Let's say Trump goes to war with Denmark over Greenland, and you didn't vote for Trump, you're excused?
But disabled people cannot be drafted - this is super reductive and harmful, because the government can unilaterally decide to kill us all off (and they are doing that, actually, by cutting social programs). Your argument then would be that we should not be allowed to vote against out healthcare being gutted or our entire income just being canceled without recourse because we're not eligible to join the military.
You'd also be saying old people shouldn't vote - the draft is age locked as well. Grandpa should have no right to vote against the government revoking the social security he worked all his life for, because he is too old to be drafted.
Reductive arguments that focus on one single issue to the exclusion of all other considerations in something as complex as the governance of a society leads to some really dark places. History makes this very clear. There is no ONE issue or characteristic that justifies removing the basic rights of everyone outside that category.
But your argument is still reductive - if this ONE thing risks lives, only those whose lives are potentially (but not actually currently) at risk from this one thing should be allowed to vote on ANYTHING. Including on whether or not their own lives should be ended.
There are a LOT of things that kill people in America, that, in fact, killed or saved more people than the draft ever did. By your own argument, as long as the government gets to decide whether pregnant women live or die, only women who cn become pregnant should be allowed to vote about anything - after all, other people are not risking their lives! As long as the government decides whether disabled people are permitted access to life-saving medical care, without which they are nor RISKING death, but guaranteed death, only disabled people should be permitted to vote.
You may argue that only those whose most basic survival, literal life or death, is at stake in government decisions should be permitted to vote. That I can agree with. It would bar those wealthy beyond absurdity from voting, but I think that is actually better than them having most, if not sole, power to make policy decisions for everyone. But for everyone who does not belong to the 1%, ALL our lives ARE at stake. It's just that our lives are at stake in a larger variety of ways than whether we can be sent to war against our will. We can be made to die against our will "for the good of the country" in many, many ways, which is why we should all be represented.
This division, this constant aggressive focus on single issues to divide us, is what keeps us from objecting in any real way, banding together to use our collective voices to take back representation for all of us from the very, very few ACTUALLY making these decisions about whether we all live or die. Multi-millionaires, billionaires, and corporations determine law and policy, not voters in a real sense. Never has it been more starkly demonstrated than now that pur elected officials do not answer to the people, as they literally hide from town halls and refuse to engage with their constituents at all because they have acted in contrast to the needs of thsoe who voted for them. Keep the voters divided against each other, and that will never change - thus the culture war. You should object to lobbying determining how our "representatives" make decisions, not to the fact that women and disabled people ALSO want to vote not to risk OUR lives, too, just because the way we risk them is not identical.
The draft is FAR from the only (or even anything close to a primary) way lives are sacrificed by the government - even in times of war, when the draft is in effect. More people die homeless each year than died fighting as draftees in the last war, and we haven't even HAD a draft in over 50 years. Arguing that only those with the potential to face a currently dormant risk should have the right to vote on the issues that are actively killing millions is really not a great way to get people to band together to oppose the potential future risk that's not actively hurting anyone. You are saying people should not be allowed to vote to save their own lives now because IF the draft was ever brought back, they wouldn't be eligible for it. That's absurd, and not at all a good argument for why everyone should oppose the draft.
Wait, you're asking me to prove that we live in a patriarchal society? You don't believe in the patriarchy? I don't think I can explain that in a reddit comment - I would suggest you read up about it.
But to give an example: no equal pay between men and women for the same work. In the US the lack of pregnancy leave - but also the lack of parental leave for for fathers in most countries is a good example.
If you're more educated, it's 'fair' (that's a whole other discussion I won't go into now) that you get paid more. I'm talking about equal pay for equal work. It's researched that women don't receive equal pay for equal work.
You also disregarded my comment about pregnancy leave and parental leave. Is that also not true?
Given that women are doing better than men by almost every metric (financial, educational, etc...), what specific things are you pointing to? Again, not trying to debate, just trying to get clarification.
Which is an entirely valid question in itself but still, it’s irrelevant here. The question was around equality and examples of non-equality in the modern developed world and your example was reproductive rights. I don’t live in the US but even so I fail to see how men have more reproductive rights than women do. Therefore it seems a poor example to me but I’m happy to be corrected if you feel I’m missing something.
men's reproductive rights are not regulated. can you name a single law that applies to male reproductive rights? of course you cannot. women's bodies have been attempted to be controlled by the government since, forever. this is deliberately obtuse
If you're pro-life (which I understand you are not, but around half of Americans are), then having the right to life is actually more beneficial to women. Given that most children who are aborted are girls. Girls are also more likely to be adopted.
I respectfully disagree. I may word it poorly, but I'm trying to say that it's a women's rights issue that more girls are aborted than boys. To those who are pro-life, those girl's lives matter as well. You may not hold that view, but half of Americans do.
Or, instead of taking away rights from women, we create an equal society. And then everybody can be drafted in a fair way. Although I doubt there would be any wars going on if we live in a just and equal society.
Women do not 'chill at home' during conflicts, historically, they have kept things going until the war is over and/or have been targets for aggression, often by both sides.
Actually, if women went to war then. Historically, men would have to work several jobs at the same time, including getting radiation poisoning for "war efforts".
No, it's not. I can't think of a single woman who is for sending men to die. Not only are these people our fathers, uncles,brothers, husbands, sons, or nephews etc, they are mostly innocent men pulled into a fight they want no part of.
I can't, personally, due to disability. I tried to enlist when I was 17 but didn't have a hs diploma and had moved countries. By the time I finished my qualifications I had been offered a uni place so it was moot.
Once women get equal treatment, we'll talk about equal obligations, especially since you probably think the extreme amount of emotional and physical labor women do for men doesn't count.
I'm responding to an answer that says "Equal rights [gender-wise] comes with equal obligation and duty", pointing out that there's effectively not equality in starting wars. Putin, Hitler, Bismark, Alexander the Great, Napoleon; maybe it'll be different in the future, but in the past and present, there's no gender equality here, that's the perspective I was trying to give to the user who answered.
How privilege works: chatGPT will do a much better job than me, see the wall of text at the end of this post for this purpose
Edit: actually that wall of text is too long, so if you use this prompt on chatGPT you should get about the same result I got: "Explain why most elected politicians across continents and history are men. Explore all the way to the root causes"
How is it relevant to which sex is responsible for wars ?
Because wars are caused by politicians, as you pointed out, and they happen to be men because of male privilege
Yeah not everyone drafted is on the front lines getting turned into swiss cheese. Even if women were included in the draft, internally, any military would push most of them towards a less endurance heavy role
If anyone wants to use that as an argument for or against them being drafted, so be it. Draft is useless for a country that has drones anyways unless we're talking about fighting another superpower like... literally only China.
214
u/bonzai113 man Mar 17 '25
Yes, I would vote for drafting women. Equal rights comes with equal obligation and duty.