To have said that women should be drafted equally to men??

[Pukkajones]

Chatting to a group of friends about the state of the world etc and while in theory I’m against conscription and forced national military service I did say that I think it’s right that there is more equality in girls/women being treated the same as boys/men in the countries that have service.
One friend who has 3 teen girls really had a go at me and got very upset. I have a teen boy and teen girl. While I hate the idea of EITHER being forced to enter the military I think they should be treated equally ( roles allowing - ie some combat roles aren’t open to women) if it came to it. ‘it’ being an actual war with Russia and/or its allies.

it got VERY heated, even though I and another friend pointed out that there are many non-combat roles in the military. And that if we did end up in a World War we’d likely have a role in it regardless of sex or age.

YABU - only men should be drafted
YANBU - in the modern world both sexes should serve in the military.

If we’re going to impose minimal academic standards, they’ll be a very sparce army
Anybody with half a brain won’t be going will they?

You could say those things and all of those things would be true young men dying over old men’s arguments

There are many women flying combat jets who are equal in every way to their male counterparts.

You need to visit our military academy at Sandhurst. It's globally respected as the best military traning an officer can get. Men and women train side by side, the women go through exactly the same rigorous physical and academic training as the men.

Women absolutely do fight in wars, and not only that, they lead too.

I do wonder what kind of world we would be living in now if conscription hadn’t been introduced during WW2.

Looking at the excesses of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, I don’t think it would be a particularly nice place.

Men are biologically the more expendable sex. We’re generally more aggressive, bigger, more competitive, and because of that we naturally fall into a protector role for our families when facing existential, physical threats. Young men need to understand this without creating some hero myth, without turning them into unempathetic people or rigid stoics, and without giving them a sense of superiority. But in times of real crisis, everyone has to be ready to carry their share for the greater good.
In that sense, I’m also against forcing women into combat roles. They’re too valuable to society — not only in their role as mothers, but of course far beyond that as well.

At what proportion?

You can't possibly be this stupid, but I'll pretend it's a serious question.

Obviously, this can't work for many reasons. Putting aside the reality that men start wars and want wars and women, generally, do not, the other realities come into play.

Most women lack the strength, speed, power, and endurance that combat demands. That's a fact you can very easily verify. The weakest of men still have the physical advantages of stamina, speed and strength over nearly all women. This. Is. A. Fact. The very very rare exceptions do not change this fact.

Soldiers frequently complain that women in their units lower physical standards, slow operations, create drama and sexual tension, demand special treatment, and become a liability in combat, which breeds resentment and destroys morale.

Male soldiers rape female soldiers in mixed units and rape women and children in war zones this is a documented historical and ongoing fact, and placing women in shared barracks or integrated combat units dramatically increases the risk of sexual assault.

Soldiers are by their very nature brutal, barbarous and lethal. That's how it works. They can't be murdering the enemy one day and turn their empathy back on when theyr're resting. It. Doesn't. Work. Like. That.

So, you'd have to have the slower, weaker female soldiers barracked alone, not training with the men.

And when they go into combat they will then be a liability there too. They will be facing MEN not other women and will be slaughtered, raped and decimated very quickly.

And then the country will have no young women left to have children and will be wiped out naturally anyway.

All the facts I have stated are easily verifiable.

Stop being stupid.

Same at HMS Raleigh, we were so proud of DD this year to start her Royal Navy career. Watching her pass out after her intense 10 week training was such a moment.

"Putting aside the reality that men start wars and want wars and women, generally, do not, the other realities come into play."

Yes let's put this aside please. Like I stated upthread its OLD men that start wars. But its the young ones who are sent to die.

Irrelevant.

Its no more irrelevant than saying women shouldn't fight because men start wars.

Also how could anyone possible call the death of young men "irrelevant"? And you were calling men brutal. Wow.

Babbling and attempting the straw man fallacy because you're wrong.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

The intake of women is currently 15%. Now that their model for training men and women toghether equally has been proven to work, the intake is being increased to 30%. It just takes time to get the message out that women are wanted in the forces, and not just for 'special' roles, they will get equal careers.

You will have noticed that the forces in general have increased advertising aimed at women. This is not because of some woke equal opportunities adgenda, it's bc women have proven themselves to be extremely competent at the roles a modern army requires. Men also perfom better when there are women involved, it creates better working dynamics.

It was discovered not too long ago by the secret services that to be successful you need to recruit people of both genders, and from all different backgrounds and ecconomic statuses. Again, this has not come out of some 'liberal adgenda', it's not political, it's been studied.

So, as stated, the original question is a stupid one, and anybody attempting to argue in its favour is stupid, or simply trolling.

But we already know all this.

Now that I have made my point inarguably and irrefutably, I won't be back to the thread. I just don't like to let stupid statements stand without explaining why they're stupid.

I've done that. Goodbye.

Me too. I’d hate the thought of having to send my DD off to conscription.

And you'd be ok about it if you had a DS?

Well that's a relief. Its unpleasant having someone with such a self important god complex who holds male lives in such low regard posting on here. Bye.

No I’d dread that too. He probably wouldn’t be as bothered about his hair and nails though.

I remember people making similar arguements for why women can't be police officers. That turned out to be a crock of shit, too.

Just wow, I hope you're trolling.

Also all those who are ok for young men to be consrcripted and sent off to potentially die as long as the young women are kept safe to keep the population going - are you okay for those young women to be 'conscripted' to be impregnated by the old men who are left, to keep that population going? I would.imagine not - i can't imagine many women would be happy with a country run like Gilead whereby women are only useful for their breeding potential. I wouldn't be happy with that!

It seems pretty sexist to suggest that women should be kept safe to keep the population going but men are expendable. Surely that reduces the woman's value to breeding.