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.