I have no idea how dire the situation in Ukraine is currently, but can we first acknowledge human nature and the necessities of defending your country against an aggressor before invoking some words that have lost most of their meaning by now?

As a father, brother, son and coward who didn't serve, I'd rather be with my loved ones than in the trenches. But having them, or any women, drafted in my place is also out of the question.

Also, are you disregarding the reality that we life in nations (that can have the misfortune of having evil demon lords as neighbors) and that man and woman are not totally interchangeable?

What is your suggestion then? Speaking as a leader of a country at war or an ally of that country.

▲

notaigenerated 2 hours ago | parent [-]

My suggestion is not to exclude men from the temporary protection scheme. They're as much of humans as women are and they too want to live their lives peacefully rather than fight for God knows what and being forced to die in the meat grinder like cattle. At least give that to people who managed to escape the Ukrainian concentration camp.

Or, if you decide that men have duties that women don't, let's get back to the patriarchy and give the men the privileges they fight for (or have to fight for in case of a war).

	▲	fivetomidnight an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ok. You loose the war, your country gets occupied and your population suffers. And you are probably a special guest of the maniac next door. Good job. Or that happened to your ally. Also good job. Most people decided millennia ago that man and woman have different duties in war times. Both important. Am I wrong? Why is it, that you have to bring up all these unrelated topics like patriarchy, privileges and nazism? Sounds familiar. Do you have a checklist? Can I see it? Also: >> ...fight for God knows what... People tend to have an attachment to the place where they live or have been born or with the people they live with. I do, at least somewhat. What about you? EDIT: In my country (one of the offending), `women cannot under any circumstance be required (conscripted) to "serve with a weapon"` That is a privilege, no? So, totally in line with policy and even in our "constitution". As i said, women have different responsibilities in wartime. not less. different. You cannot achieve perfect equality if two things aren't perfectly equal. We try, we really do. But there will always be something left. And that is fine. Or do you suggest to conscript women and send them to the front instead? just to satisfy equality?