Why should men sacrifice and die for nothing, by not getting anything in return, not even a simple appreciation? Why should only men die when things get tough? I also would much rather see other unknown women die, than to send myself or my son to die for them.
Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!
The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.
If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?
> And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder.
Women already contribute to society by being in the work force. If you think that's not enough, then you should probably think about rewarding them for doing something else.
> The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.
This is not an argument, neither from theoretical nor practical point of view. This is akin to saying "Yeah, you want a universal health care for everyone, but I want everybody to be so rich that they can buy any insurance and bear any sudden health-costs". Not an argument, is it.
The reality is the way it is. Wars are always going to be fought and no amount of toxic peace wishing will change that.
If anything, adding women to the equation would:
1. make the force stronger. Therefore, a higher probability of not being attacked, and a higher probability of dominating the enemy (thus decreasing the total amount of victims).
2. make the political decisions to start wars much harder (in a good way).
This is exactly the reason why I am against the current American fight-for-money military and am for compulsory army service (like Finland), and for both sexes at that.
> If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?
That's my point exactly. If women are not doing their evolutionary job, why should men? There can only be 2 possible solutions:
1. no sex has any sex-specific obligations (be it giving birth or going to war)
2. or impose similar sex-specific obligations to both sexes.
Men already contribute to society by being in the work force (and do a much more important foundational work than women), and it is unfair to impose additional unilateral sexist obligations on only one sex.
I am against the hypocrisy and want equality between sexes (they don't have to be the same for both sexes, but if one has more obligations, they should be appropriately compensated by additional rights/privileges).
>Why should men sacrifice and die for nothing, by not getting anything in return, not even a simple appreciation?
Because a bunch of pissed off men is destabilizing, and what has worked in the past is sending them off to conquer/die under some glory laced pretense. The young men naturally vibe to it, the older men recognize the pattern and know it works.
>Why should only men die when things get tough? I also would much rather see other unknown women die, than to send myself or my son to die for them.
Women are incubators, and cannot be utilized as such if they are dead. Men are seeders, and can have measures taken to fulfill that role without being physically present.
Look, the rest is just fucking cope, man, not even good cope. Let me drop some facts to help you out. Until you're really willing to put your ass on the line for someone else, you don't really have the moral position to ask someone else to do it for you. Period. That's the thing you need to be angry about right now. You might get what you give. You give it all, you might get something back; you might get a hole in the head or somewhere else equally problematic; you might get a shot at white picket fence, wife, & three kids. You're being asked to give it all by assholes who have done nothing but take and demand. Sit with that idea for a bit, then recompute where you stand. It isn't about men vs. women. That's a distraction. It's about givers vs. takers, and takers are desperate to keep the givers from realizing that they are the ones being played/harvested. If the Givers actually wake up to the fact they are being manipulated, it is a guarantee the manipulator is the next target on the chopping block; because for the Givers, it's a moral imperative to protect their own. To wake up, you have to stop assuming benevolent intent and question really hard anyone who tells you to assume it. Good people don't need to tell you to assume good faith. They just act in good faith, and you reciprocate. If someone tells you to assume good faith, it is almost certainly because there isn't entirely good faith at play. It's exhausting, but sadly necessary. Now what you need to ask yourself, is am I speaking as a Giver or a Taker? Answer is, both. I want you to be more free. I want those who'd chain you to be less free to do so. I'm asking you to become less easy to govern. What am I giving up? Time, I guess, and the ability to as easily Take from you in the future. I'd rather live in a world of endless squabbling/questioning of motives than in one where assholes run roughshod over everyone because no one ever calls them on their bullshit. Acting trustworthy to gain trust isn't unbearable to me. Cost of doing business as they say. There are those however, who do find it unbearable, and those are the ones we should be targeting. Not each other.
> Because a bunch of pissed off men is destabilizing, and what has worked in the past is sending them off to conquer/die under some glory laced pretense.
Such was the way in the old times. At the same time when women were taking their own feminine role and were giving birth.
But this does not apply anymore. Check the population pyramids for various countries. Having a lot of young men that need their energy to be put somewhere is not a problem in modern Western societies.
Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!