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.
But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They were never operating with standards to begin with. If you're going to hold them to any principles, you need to hold them to yours.
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.
Probably, understand I'm denying the foundation of their rhetoric entirely. I'm not interested in engaging with rhetoric they don't actually have any principles to support, and the asserted principles they claim are not even ones I accept. That's why I'm standing specifically against equality. Equality is a communist and Leftist argument. My argument is towards freedom, which creates inequality by definition.
Now, for the draft, my only point is that I'm tolerant of the coercion of a draft from an existential threat (which may not even apply for Ukraine, I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand). If we assert a genuine existential threat, I can see the justification of a society attempting to demand the men of that society fight.
Then again, if a society does have to demand people fight for it, was it worth saving? That's why I'm not going to try and argue with people here who would say, "I won't fight." Fair enough, if you want your society to collapse, I should actually be encouraging you to leave it, not force you to defend it. ... which is why the draft is a stupid plan anyway. General mobilization may not be, but conscription is. I'd rather the government just hand out anti-aircraft weapons to anyone that wants them, rather than try to force people who are fleeing to fight. They make bad soldiers anyway.
It's similar to the American militia's experience in the Revolutionary War. Shitty and unmotivated militia can be used as a stop-gap in your line. You don't tell them to do anything but garrison a well defended position, put them next to highly motivated and disciplined troops, don't make it an obvious place to attack, and they'll actually do okay.
They aren't good troops, but you can typically use them in a pinch if you're careful. They may be motivated by the idea of glory in the battle if they do well. It's a good story to come home with.
Don't over expose them, don't give them complex orders, and allow them to retreat from battle slowly as a kind of skirmishing force, and you'll be fine.
The only real worse troops you can get is actually mercenaries. Your poorly motivated troops will flee at the first sign of trouble. Mercenaries, even good ones, can betray you during battle. You gotta be super careful with them. Machiavelli actually goes on and on about how fucking terrible mercenaries are. I think that's a personal bias from his particular era and region for warfare (feudal Italy... yeah, he's probably right). But mercenary forces can be highly competent and professional, and even more motivated that local forces if they are really good (the Swiss, the Hessians, the Prussians generally). Mercenaries are also the people who sacked Rome for years after not getting paid and forced the Pope to flee for his life, so you can see just how bad mercenaries can actually be.
Conscripts can work if used properly, and the worst they will do is break. Medium risk, low reward troops. Mercenaries can actually fucking turn on you, even if you paid them, even if they are professional. High risk, high reward troops.
Actual cannon fodder troops? Genuine troop formations designed to absorb heavy fire during the initial stages of an attack? They're actually all basically elite units. Light Infantry skirmishers that force the enemy to fire to early or expose their position (or sew disorganization by killing enemy officers), expert saboteurs who existed to blow up enemy fortifications, highly disciplined heavy infantry that are conditioned to resist artillery barrages, or even inspire incorrectly timed cavalry charges. The most extreme example are the Caroleans who were Sweedish crack infantry. They were extremely well-equipped, well-disciplined, professional soldiers who were designed to simply take heavy fire from enemy formations, engage at 50 yards, then re-engage at close range with swords and bayonets. This rush of crack infantry would regularly result in the breaking of enemy formations. The formations cannon and rear could then be attacked (either by advancing Caroleans or supporting cavalry), while the remainder of the regular troops made a slower advance on a disorganized enemy that would immediately try to redeploy and re-arrange units in the chaos, causing the whole formation to collapse into a route. This allowed the Sweedish Empire to punch well above their weight class against the French, Spanish, Poles, and Russians.
So yes, poorly trained and unmotivated troops can do well enough to survive and garrison positions if properly supported. But it's only the case if your enemy doesn't know how bad they are, and if you're a very competent commander. Otherwise, you do what the British did and just beat them into becoming disciplined. The whole Russian idea of shooting people who retreat didn't really serve any purpose except to scare other Russians from retreating, and keep the Germans on their toes.
So yes, poorly trained and unmotivated troops can do well enough to survive and garrison positions if properly supported. But it's only the case if your enemy doesn't know how bad they are, and if you're a very competent commander.
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.
They were never operating with standards to begin with. If you're going to hold them to any principles, you need to hold them to yours.
Probably, understand I'm denying the foundation of their rhetoric entirely. I'm not interested in engaging with rhetoric they don't actually have any principles to support, and the asserted principles they claim are not even ones I accept. That's why I'm standing specifically against equality. Equality is a communist and Leftist argument. My argument is towards freedom, which creates inequality by definition.
Now, for the draft, my only point is that I'm tolerant of the coercion of a draft from an existential threat (which may not even apply for Ukraine, I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand). If we assert a genuine existential threat, I can see the justification of a society attempting to demand the men of that society fight.
Then again, if a society does have to demand people fight for it, was it worth saving? That's why I'm not going to try and argue with people here who would say, "I won't fight." Fair enough, if you want your society to collapse, I should actually be encouraging you to leave it, not force you to defend it. ... which is why the draft is a stupid plan anyway. General mobilization may not be, but conscription is. I'd rather the government just hand out anti-aircraft weapons to anyone that wants them, rather than try to force people who are fleeing to fight. They make bad soldiers anyway.
Speed & Weight!
On a more serious note, has cannon fodder (Poorly trained and unmotivated troops) worked well in any historical battle through time?
Very rarely, and mostly as filler.
It's similar to the American militia's experience in the Revolutionary War. Shitty and unmotivated militia can be used as a stop-gap in your line. You don't tell them to do anything but garrison a well defended position, put them next to highly motivated and disciplined troops, don't make it an obvious place to attack, and they'll actually do okay.
They aren't good troops, but you can typically use them in a pinch if you're careful. They may be motivated by the idea of glory in the battle if they do well. It's a good story to come home with.
Don't over expose them, don't give them complex orders, and allow them to retreat from battle slowly as a kind of skirmishing force, and you'll be fine.
The only real worse troops you can get is actually mercenaries. Your poorly motivated troops will flee at the first sign of trouble. Mercenaries, even good ones, can betray you during battle. You gotta be super careful with them. Machiavelli actually goes on and on about how fucking terrible mercenaries are. I think that's a personal bias from his particular era and region for warfare (feudal Italy... yeah, he's probably right). But mercenary forces can be highly competent and professional, and even more motivated that local forces if they are really good (the Swiss, the Hessians, the Prussians generally). Mercenaries are also the people who sacked Rome for years after not getting paid and forced the Pope to flee for his life, so you can see just how bad mercenaries can actually be.
Conscripts can work if used properly, and the worst they will do is break. Medium risk, low reward troops. Mercenaries can actually fucking turn on you, even if you paid them, even if they are professional. High risk, high reward troops.
Actual cannon fodder troops? Genuine troop formations designed to absorb heavy fire during the initial stages of an attack? They're actually all basically elite units. Light Infantry skirmishers that force the enemy to fire to early or expose their position (or sew disorganization by killing enemy officers), expert saboteurs who existed to blow up enemy fortifications, highly disciplined heavy infantry that are conditioned to resist artillery barrages, or even inspire incorrectly timed cavalry charges. The most extreme example are the Caroleans who were Sweedish crack infantry. They were extremely well-equipped, well-disciplined, professional soldiers who were designed to simply take heavy fire from enemy formations, engage at 50 yards, then re-engage at close range with swords and bayonets. This rush of crack infantry would regularly result in the breaking of enemy formations. The formations cannon and rear could then be attacked (either by advancing Caroleans or supporting cavalry), while the remainder of the regular troops made a slower advance on a disorganized enemy that would immediately try to redeploy and re-arrange units in the chaos, causing the whole formation to collapse into a route. This allowed the Sweedish Empire to punch well above their weight class against the French, Spanish, Poles, and Russians.
So yes, poorly trained and unmotivated troops can do well enough to survive and garrison positions if properly supported. But it's only the case if your enemy doesn't know how bad they are, and if you're a very competent commander. Otherwise, you do what the British did and just beat them into becoming disciplined. The whole Russian idea of shooting people who retreat didn't really serve any purpose except to scare other Russians from retreating, and keep the Germans on their toes.
Summing this up as scarecrows
And thanks for the detailed explanation.