this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
194 points (93.7% liked)

World News

32318 readers
1017 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Conscription should not be

Exactly! But… where it already exists, and is needed, why should it be bigoted and sexist?

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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......

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

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.