Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

Here's the thing, citizens who are drafted are not given the same options as those who volunteer, they are slated for where ever the military needs bodies, and during a major conflict that will always be the front lines.  We already have vast numbers of support personnel who are highly proficient at their jobs, and while some unskilled labor will be needed as a force grows in size, mostly what gets expanded is the number of guns and boots on the ground.

I have no issue with women voluntarily serving in the armed forces (so long as they meet minimum standards), but we already have a serious issue, in the US at least, with female soldiers getting themselves knocked up to avoid deployment.

[NJW2000]

Also drafting women might get a bit dicey; there will be instances of "draft dodging" that a woman gets a letter (or whatever happens) and then immediately goes out to try to get pregnant to avoid it.

Haven't bothered with reading the whole discussion, but this has got to be a win-win on the repopulation thing, right?

[TD1]

Also drafting women might get a bit dicey; there will be instances of "draft dodging" that a woman gets a letter (or whatever happens) and then immediately goes out to try to get pregnant to avoid it.

Haven't bothered with reading the whole discussion, but this has got to be a win-win on the repopulation thing, right?

Right.

Here's the thing, citizens who are drafted are not given the same options as those who volunteer, they are slated for where ever the military needs bodies, and during a major conflict that will always be the front lines.  We already have vast numbers of support personnel who are highly proficient at their jobs, and while some unskilled labor will be needed as a force grows in size, mostly what gets expanded is the number of guns and boots on the ground.

I have no issue with women voluntarily serving in the armed forces (so long as they meet minimum standards), but we already have a serious issue, in the US at least, with female soldiers getting themselves knocked up to avoid deployment.

If it is truly that desperate, then that is where they're needed, and that is were they ought to be sent. Unless, of course, you'd rather they remain behind as broodmares, heh. Repopulation can always come later, but more "bodies on the front" will mean a quicker resolution on the front, and less death.

Unless they send their women too. But that depends on how progressive your enemy is.

[cochramd]

A quick google search tells me that, at least in the US military, there's always some portion of "non combat positions" that is sent on active service. And if things get so bad they break out the draft, I doubt there will be many "non combat positions", just guys being rotated between the front line and support positions.

The solution, of course, is simply not to go to war, but since when has that ever worked out?

[Helgoland]

There is the idea that one factor contributing to the Red Army's success in WWII was their allowing women in the military.

[Sonlirain]

Here's the thing.
I'd rather be male and put up with stupid feminists than be female and have to put up crazy androcentrists.

Feminists just talk crap about men being those evil sex driven assholes that want to keep them down.

On the other hand you have fringe MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way).
At a glance the movement has sense and is about something everyone with a sense of justice and a brain should support.
It's basically "In protest against Gynocentric laws we won't get married or invested in women because all laws are stacked in their favor in case of a divorce."
Sounds fair and makes sense but now it's morphing into this weird hyper libertarian anti female (as in all females are equally evil and dumb childish bitches only wanting to steal your money and spend it on shoes. Better have no rights at all.) movement.

Some MGTOW tagged videos posted on youtube are outright disturbing in how warped those people became because of the echo box they all cuddle in.

[NJW2000]

Weird how despite the fact that feminists are always being annoying and demanding while men's rights groups have sensible aims and objectives, one would much rather let a child stay with a feminist for a week than let one go within six metres of a men's rights activist.

One of the great unremarked-upon paradoxes of modern life, I suppose.



_/s

[Neonivek]

Weird how despite the fact that feminists are always being annoying and demanding while men's rights groups have sensible aims and objectives, one would much rather let a child stay with a feminist for a week than let one go within six metres of a men's rights activist.

One of the great unremarked-upon paradoxes of modern life, I suppose.

Because Men's Rights is taboo even when the person speaking is legitimate. As it is almost always seen as a way to put women down and a genuine threat that if people allow speak could result in the end of women's rights everywhere.

As opposed to Women's rights where even if the speaker is completely delusional and is talking about how women are superior to men and that men are all terrible people... They are seen as harmless.

[Rolan7]

There's no need to optimize birth rates in the modern era.
According to Wikipedia The USA lost 405,399 people in World War 2 (from 1941-1945).  Whereas our reported population rose from 133.40M to 139.93M.  Thanks in part to the resulting baby boom, but also due to uncontrolled, unsustainable population growth, our population is now 321.72 million.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/US_Census_Population_Graph_from_1790.svg
IE, World War 2 only slightly, temporarily slowed our exponential population growth.  Vietnam and the wars in the middle east, while horrible and expensive, didn't affect our population statistic perceptibly.

So for us to even begin worrying about conservation of fertile wombs, we'd need to be facing a situation like France in the world wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#/media/File:Population2Centuries.jpg
Notice that afterwards their population growth became exponential.  If they had sent women into battle, maybe the growth would be more linear.

So if the USA becomes the site of World War 3, and for some reason nuclear deterrence doesn't work...  No, frankly even then we'll have bigger issues than pure population growth.  We'll probably lose millions just from starvation once our infrastructure is at all disrupted.  Our population might crash soon even without a war, due to famine or plague, results of massive overpopulation.

(The real problem with using women in combat duty is their ability to carry heavy equipment and fellow soldiers.  Those who can, should be allowed to)

[NJW2000]

You realise I was laughing at people who were phobic of feminism? Guess I didn't make the tiny /s clear enough.

[Neonivek]

You realise I was laughing at people who were phobic of feminism? Guess I didn't make the tiny /s clear enough.

I thought you were trying to be Ironic xD not sarcastic (Ignoring that Sarcasm is irony)

[cochramd]

Here's the thing.
I'd rather be male and put up with stupid feminists than be female and have to put up crazy androcentrists.

Of course you would, because men have an easier time not giving a shit about things.

Back at Christmas, I shared my opinion with my family about how stupid it is that some people make a big deal about trying to get women into STEM programs. As I see it, so many such initiatives are already in place that every possible barrier women face getting into STEM has been knocked down, yet women are still the minority. One can only rationally conclude that most women just don't want to go into STEM and that further efforts are just a waste of time. WELL, my sisters told me all about how teachers and TAs would always talk to their male lab partners rather than them, even if it seemed like the male lab partners didn't know what they were doing. I was going to counter with "So what? My teachers prefer to ask my lab partners questions instead of me, and I don't give a shit about it.", but I realized that I didn't even know off the top of my head whether that was even true. After thinking about for about a day, I felt pretty sure that it was true, but I still wasn't 100% confidant. You see, because I didn't (and still don't) give a shit about who got more questions from the teacher, my recollection of the matter is fuzzy at best.

I love and respect my sisters and all, but come on. When it happened to them, they saw it as a barrier for women to get into STEM. When it happened to me, I didn't care about it to the point of not even noticing it. If that's not women being the petty gender, I don't know what is. And let's not even get into the fact that when did realize it happened to me, I concluded "well, I guess the other guy was just better than me"....

[Sonlirain]

You realise I was laughing at people who were phobic of feminism? Guess I didn't make the tiny /s clear enough.

I thought you were trying to be Ironic xD not sarcastic (Ignoring that Sarcasm is irony)

No irony is when i earthquake proof my house against earthquakes and it falls apart after a mild earthquake.

Saying "Gee! Good that you earthquake proofed your house!" while staring at the rubble is sarcasm.

[cochramd]

No irony is when i earthquake proof my house against earthquakes and it falls apart after a mild earthquake.

No, that's poor engineering/construction. Irony is when you earthquake-proof your house and it gets destroyed by a tornado.

[Sonlirain]

No irony is when i earthquake proof my house against earthquakes and it falls apart after a mild earthquake.

No, that's poor engineering/construction. Irony is when you earthquake-proof your house and it gets destroyed by a tornado.

True but i think that when something supposedly x-proof gets destroyed by x it's more ironic overall than when something x-proof gets destroyed by a sudden applcation of y.
Hey my watch is water proof. *watch gets hit by a hammer* And now it's destroyed anyway. How (not so) ironic!

On the other hand we could have an example with a house that's water efficient and economical. Recycling rain water to flush the toilet ETC.
And then the house is destroyed by a flood.

As for STEM.
Supposedly women are a few IQ points behind men on average (5 or so) so it would make sense if they are less common over there as most women students go for humanist studies like psychology (or gender studies *cough*) while STEM is about pure science. And considering that the requirements are pretty high it's obvious why few men and fewer women get in.