hmmm…things that don’t require much physical strength and endurance? ( Any answer that is more complex will result in a messy ideological argument, which I don’t want to engage in.
Actually, you know what? I don’t think I want to continue this argument. I am sorry for provoking your replies and then abandoning the conversion, I really am )
Edit: I usually don’t do such a thing but I’m not feeling well today.
Legitimate question, maybe it’s because the practice of conscription is rooted in patriarchy? The idea that a group of men with superior social power forcing men with inferior social power to fight and die for them seems to be very patriarchal to me. With that lens it makes sense why women aren’t conscripted, it’s not their job. Maybe their job is to be the prize for the victor…? That’s dark…
The average man outperforms the average woman in effectively all tasks related to physical strength and endurance. Surely you see why warfare, something largely dependant on physical strength and endurance, is mainly left to men.
Aside from infantrymen and marines who might need to hump 100+kg of gear across rough terrain and run the risk of engaging in close-quarters and possibly even hand-to-hand combat, modern weapons largely negates the strength advantage of men.
100% of all support roles and probably up to 80% of all combat roles can be employed by women without any degradation of direct combat effectiveness.
There are plenty of potential recruits left.
They just don’t have the political stomach to implement true equality. So they continue to treat men as disposable.
Good point.
True equality’s impossible, both are inherently different.
And that justifies treating men as disposable assets of war?
Some of the best combatants in modern warfare - and no few in historical warfare - have been female.
Conscription should not be bigoted and sexist.
Can you provide me with a statistical ratio of those great combatants? Specifically for those who are in the frontlines and fighting.
Men are much more suited for war, and the skill set of women is better utilized elsewhere.
What skillset is that exactly?
hmmm…things that don’t require much physical strength and endurance? ( Any answer that is more complex will result in a messy ideological argument, which I don’t want to engage in.
Actually, you know what? I don’t think I want to continue this argument. I am sorry for provoking your replies and then abandoning the conversion, I really am )
Edit: I usually don’t do such a thing but I’m not feeling well today.
Conscription should not be
Exactly! But… where it already exists, and is needed, why should it be bigoted and sexist?
Legitimate question, maybe it’s because the practice of conscription is rooted in patriarchy? The idea that a group of men with superior social power forcing men with inferior social power to fight and die for them seems to be very patriarchal to me. With that lens it makes sense why women aren’t conscripted, it’s not their job. Maybe their job is to be the prize for the victor…? That’s dark…
The average man outperforms the average woman in effectively all tasks related to physical strength and endurance. Surely you see why warfare, something largely dependant on physical strength and endurance, is mainly left to men.
Aside from infantrymen and marines who might need to hump 100+kg of gear across rough terrain and run the risk of engaging in close-quarters and possibly even hand-to-hand combat, modern weapons largely negates the strength advantage of men.
100% of all support roles and probably up to 80% of all combat roles can be employed by women without any degradation of direct combat effectiveness.
The reason isn’t that they believe men are disposable. It is that they believe women are inferior. Just look at the comments in this topic.
Redditors when Ukrainians are unwilling to send literally everyone to their certain death: 😱😱