> that argument is uninformed, check the birth rate in ukraine

This has long been the argument for a male-only draft.

One woman can make 1-2 babies every 9 months on average. It is difficult and expensive to speed that up; you can implant quadruplets and induce labor at six months, but that introduces all sorts of other problems. Sperm is much easier to obtain.

> who will be working hard jobs where men are prevalent?

Women, if too many men die in the war.

> I’ve never seen women working in construction in ukraine

This was also the case for the US in the 1940s. Women entered the workforce in large numbers for the first time. Plenty of predecent for this sort of shift.

> go learn the history and then come here to comment on the matter

As you can see from the above, this is perhaps advice you should follow first before yelling at others.

▲

looshch a day ago | parent [-]

> This has long been the argument for a male-only draft. One woman can make 1-2 babies every 9 months on average. It is difficult and expensive to speed that up; you can implant quadruplets and induce labor at six months, but that introduces all sorts of other problems. Sperm is much easier to obtain.

this argument is detached from ukrainian realities. Can ≠ will. Also have you checked the birth rate? Do you expect it to grow in a post-war context?

> Women, if too many men die in the war

so who will then raise these 1-2 babies every 9 months on average? If women need to replace men in the workforce, first they need to go through education and training. Along with having children, it’s incredibly hard to accomplish

> Women entered the workforce in large numbers for the first time. Plenty of precedent for this sort of shift

in the same sentence you say ‘for the first time’ and then ‘Plenty of precedent’. You either have no idea what ‘plenty’ means or you contradict yourself

the states weren’t ruined like europe was. The large numbers you are talking about are only large compared to normal historical numbers and female population percentage

also you completely ignore the cultural context, ukraine is not the states. The story of your country, which seems the only one you know, isn‘t as relevant as, for example, the history of ussr. We didn’t have a boomer generation. There are way too many differences for me to continue, so surely you are uneducated on the ussr history

> yelling at others.

yelling? Not a single exclamation point but still yelling? You have a rich imagination for sure

edit: formatting

	▲	ceejayoz a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Also have you checked the birth rate? Do you expect it to grow in a post-war context? Yes, birth rates tend to go up when wars end. > in the same sentence you say ‘for the first time’ and then ‘Plenty of precedent’. You either have no idea what ‘plenty’ means or you contradict yourself This is baffling. Women entering the workforce in the 1940s due to the war is the precedent. It happened throughout the developed world. We are now eighty years past that demonstration. > The story of your country, which seems the only one you know, isn‘t as relevant as, for example, the history of ussr. We didn’t have a boomer generation. There was indeed a birth rate spike in the 1940s in Russia. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038013/crude-birth-rate... Unfortunately… Stalin. Side note: I have dual citizenship, so I’m not sure which one of them is “the only one” I know.