Totally, but that's beside the point. To have equality between the sexes, the same policies have to apply to both sexes to the same degree. Any deviation from equal treatment is, by definition, inequality. As such, women should also be drafted, or no one should.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
We've bee fighting for equality for what? 250 years? Tell me something....do you like the country better now or 20 years ago?
Are you sure we're seeking equality? Do you feel more equal? Or are you having to check your white privilege at school? At university? During job searches? At your job? When you apply for home loans? When getting government assistance to open a business?
Obviously, brother, things are garbage tier for us non-leftists and a far cry from what they should be. We're not equal along any identity line, but we're facing people with a lot of social leverage and power who promote equity and intersectionality.
It's easy to play games with other people's blood.
Draft women, forever and always.
Totally, but that's beside the point
I don't believe it is. Imp doesn't want to see more men dying in war. A sentiment I share. His response is to demand women be drafted, resulting in (any realistic interpretation) mixed squads which have been shown to be less effective. Hence my issue. I don't want to see more men die in the pursuit of a notion as moronic as "equality".
To have equality between the sexes
Disparate individual abilities lead to disparate individual outcomes, where it is inferior individual outcomes stoking the resentment that makes "equality" such effective political fodder. There will be no true equality between the sexes, because generally speaking, the sexes are not equal.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
I have mixed feelings about no draft. I entirely agree with the above though, and I guess traditionally there was compensation. The problem is we're upholding our end of the social contract and seeing nothing in return for it.
The sexes will never be objectively equal, for sure, but I'm referring to equality before the law. There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality just because overall legal equality is difficult to achieve.
There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality
Legal equality is concerned with equal legal treatment regardless of individual characteristics or outcome. Those characteristics can outright preclude a desirable outcome. It really comes down the quality of the laws and their interpretation. Like the definition of those characteristics, interpretations are also subject to change and manipulation - they reflect the current political will. See trannies, legal alteration of your birth certificate and the practical ramifications.
It works more often than not but a strong argument can be made against it in cases where outcome is critical - why the law itself routinely includes exceptions. Personally, I fail to see the victory in an academic application of equality that results in the loss of more of my countrymens' lives.
Totally, but that's beside the point. To have equality between the sexes, the same policies have to apply to both sexes to the same degree. Any deviation from equal treatment is, by definition, inequality. As such, women should also be drafted, or no one should.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
We've bee fighting for equality for what? 250 years? Tell me something....do you like the country better now or 20 years ago?
Are you sure we're seeking equality? Do you feel more equal? Or are you having to check your white privilege at school? At university? During job searches? At your job? When you apply for home loans? When getting government assistance to open a business?
Obviously, brother, things are garbage tier for us non-leftists and a far cry from what they should be. We're not equal along any identity line, but we're facing people with a lot of social leverage and power who promote equity and intersectionality.
I don't believe it is. Imp doesn't want to see more men dying in war. A sentiment I share. His response is to demand women be drafted, resulting in (any realistic interpretation) mixed squads which have been shown to be less effective. Hence my issue. I don't want to see more men die in the pursuit of a notion as moronic as "equality".
Disparate individual abilities lead to disparate individual outcomes, where it is inferior individual outcomes stoking the resentment that makes "equality" such effective political fodder. There will be no true equality between the sexes, because generally speaking, the sexes are not equal.
I have mixed feelings about no draft. I entirely agree with the above though, and I guess traditionally there was compensation. The problem is we're upholding our end of the social contract and seeing nothing in return for it.
The sexes will never be objectively equal, for sure, but I'm referring to equality before the law. There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality just because overall legal equality is difficult to achieve.
Rights for men and women, but responsibilities only for men. That is not equality.
I agree completely, hence why I support drafting women or, even better, not drafting anyone.
Legal equality is concerned with equal legal treatment regardless of individual characteristics or outcome. Those characteristics can outright preclude a desirable outcome. It really comes down the quality of the laws and their interpretation. Like the definition of those characteristics, interpretations are also subject to change and manipulation - they reflect the current political will. See trannies, legal alteration of your birth certificate and the practical ramifications.
It works more often than not but a strong argument can be made against it in cases where outcome is critical - why the law itself routinely includes exceptions. Personally, I fail to see the victory in an academic application of equality that results in the loss of more of my countrymens' lives.