Imp, you are again, doing what feminists do. You look at Ukrainian men, then you claim you are one of them from a distance. You flap your mouth about how the collective you is forced into something, while you are sitting on your ass at home in safety.
Nobody asked you to fight, honey. Stop.
This is the Imp version of "those middle eastern women".
This is appropriation of someone else's tragedy.
Woah, you declare you would not do a thing that doesn't involve you and nobody asked you to do.
I also wouldn't suck Elon Musk's dick. Not like he would want me, not like we will ever be in the situation, not like even if we ever talked we would bring it up. BUT NO NO I WON'T. This declaration made literal zero influence on how the world continues to go on.
I'm sure you would. I'm so sure you are not just doing mouth karate and I'm sure Russia would really need you. Just like when you claimed that in a societal apocalypse, people will beg for you to be the male leadership. Righto.
So if women, whom you hate, do something, you just have to copy it like crazy because...? You are so much better or something?
Do you have a mirror? Just because someone else is an ass, doesn't mean you have to be an ass as well. It makes no sense why you are so obsessed with copying bad female behaviour and still pretending you are better.
The cold calculus is that women will not be able to fight as well. Draftees and Conscripts are terrible fighters as it is. Female Conscripts would be all but useless as infantry. Worse, if you believe in population change, killing off women is worse than killing off men. It destroys your population's ability to recover, and an overpopulation of men to women will cause massive social instability.
When it comes to an existential threat of war, men and women aren't equal. Worse, men are more expendable than women. Even children are more expendable than women if we are talking about the most extreme level threats.
If you have a population of 30 people: 10 men, 10 women, 5 girls and 5 boys, the lowest recoverable losses you can take are going to look like 1 men, 5 women, 0 kids. 10 men, 1 woman and 5 boys is basically the death of the group.
If the cold calculus is that women won't be able to fight as well, there should not have to risk themselves, then you're implicitly saying that... Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
Either they are strong, independent and equally physically capable and thus able to be drafted and justified in the denigration of men all over the world... Or...
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
Define "power". I think men should be the patriarchs of their families.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
It's not a double standard, because I don't believe in equality between men and women, because I don't believe in equality. Inequality is the natural order of all things. Women have things they are good at, and men have things they are good at. If you are looking at an existential threat, the death of your women will cause the death of your society long-term. The death of your men is recoverable. The death of your children is very bad, but it's still recoverable.
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
Yes.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
I'm not, I'm looking at the long-term survival of a people due to an existential threat. Women are invaluable in building families and social communities. Their reproduction and motherhood is a major aspect of that.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
I oppose the draft generally, but it's about an existential threat. No one can be "cannon fodder" in such a case. You need to hope that enough men can get past their problems to survive. Women, still, need to survive for the society to survive. The chance that women can fight long and hard enough to become the salty, battle-hardened warrior that we need men to be in such an existential event is practically zero. Even a fat-body man can become that with enough pressure.
I appreciate that you believe in such methods. But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They have been tooting the horn that they are just as good and equal as men in ALL aspects, and time and again they Welch when it is time to prove it.
It might not be a personal double standard, but you are enabling the Female Superiority crowd to hold one.
I'm guessing were just opposite sides of the same coin. You would rather fight them over their double standard, I'd rather let them have it all including reaping what they've sown. Then just rebuilding after the fact. We've fought against the rhetoric for decades.
Imp, you are again, doing what feminists do. You look at Ukrainian men, then you claim you are one of them from a distance. You flap your mouth about how the collective you is forced into something, while you are sitting on your ass at home in safety.
Nobody asked you to fight, honey. Stop.
This is the Imp version of "those middle eastern women".
This is appropriation of someone else's tragedy.
Essentially the concept of 'Stolen Valour'.
Woah, you declare you would not do a thing that doesn't involve you and nobody asked you to do.
I also wouldn't suck Elon Musk's dick. Not like he would want me, not like we will ever be in the situation, not like even if we ever talked we would bring it up. BUT NO NO I WON'T. This declaration made literal zero influence on how the world continues to go on.
I'm sure you would. I'm so sure you are not just doing mouth karate and I'm sure Russia would really need you. Just like when you claimed that in a societal apocalypse, people will beg for you to be the male leadership. Righto.
So if women, whom you hate, do something, you just have to copy it like crazy because...? You are so much better or something?
Do you have a mirror? Just because someone else is an ass, doesn't mean you have to be an ass as well. It makes no sense why you are so obsessed with copying bad female behaviour and still pretending you are better.
Terrorist state?
Bit far fetched.
The cold calculus is that women will not be able to fight as well. Draftees and Conscripts are terrible fighters as it is. Female Conscripts would be all but useless as infantry. Worse, if you believe in population change, killing off women is worse than killing off men. It destroys your population's ability to recover, and an overpopulation of men to women will cause massive social instability.
When it comes to an existential threat of war, men and women aren't equal. Worse, men are more expendable than women. Even children are more expendable than women if we are talking about the most extreme level threats.
If you have a population of 30 people: 10 men, 10 women, 5 girls and 5 boys, the lowest recoverable losses you can take are going to look like 1 men, 5 women, 0 kids. 10 men, 1 woman and 5 boys is basically the death of the group.
If the cold calculus is that women won't be able to fight as well, there should not have to risk themselves, then you're implicitly saying that... Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
Either they are strong, independent and equally physically capable and thus able to be drafted and justified in the denigration of men all over the world... Or...
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
Define "power". I think men should be the patriarchs of their families.
It's not a double standard, because I don't believe in equality between men and women, because I don't believe in equality. Inequality is the natural order of all things. Women have things they are good at, and men have things they are good at. If you are looking at an existential threat, the death of your women will cause the death of your society long-term. The death of your men is recoverable. The death of your children is very bad, but it's still recoverable.
Yes.
I'm not, I'm looking at the long-term survival of a people due to an existential threat. Women are invaluable in building families and social communities. Their reproduction and motherhood is a major aspect of that.
I oppose the draft generally, but it's about an existential threat. No one can be "cannon fodder" in such a case. You need to hope that enough men can get past their problems to survive. Women, still, need to survive for the society to survive. The chance that women can fight long and hard enough to become the salty, battle-hardened warrior that we need men to be in such an existential event is practically zero. Even a fat-body man can become that with enough pressure.
I appreciate that you believe in such methods. But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They have been tooting the horn that they are just as good and equal as men in ALL aspects, and time and again they Welch when it is time to prove it.
It might not be a personal double standard, but you are enabling the Female Superiority crowd to hold one.
I'm guessing were just opposite sides of the same coin. You would rather fight them over their double standard, I'd rather let them have it all including reaping what they've sown. Then just rebuilding after the fact. We've fought against the rhetoric for decades.