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.
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.
It's easy to play games with other people's blood.
Draft women, forever and always.
There is no equality until there is equality on the battlefield.
Eh, as long as they're not in mixed units. Otherwise, you'll just be making men's lives worse.
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.
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.