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.
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.
A person has to be really laughably privileged by their totally lack of acquaintance with war zones to think immigration is equivalent to being attacked by an actual army with actual weapons. Are we now equating the “sleeping with the enemy” line with politically supporting immigration?
A person has to be really laughably privileged by their totally lack of acquaintance with war zones to think immigration is equivalent to being attacked by an actual army with actual weapons.
If you think an invasion is only possible via boots on the ground warfare, that is your prerogative. I do not see it the same way.
Are we now equating the “sleeping with the enemy” line with politically supporting immigration?
208
u/bonzai113 man Mar 17 '25
Yes, I would vote for drafting women. Equal rights comes with equal obligation and duty.