Militarization of Men?

[ハイイロギツネ]

Do you think the men of the west are ready for militarization?

How do you feel about it? I've heard some old people say that the youth should be conscripted and taught traits like discipline and how to be a man.

[Nekoborg]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

The women did serve during World War 2 in non combat roles.

They all pulled together and kept the homefront going while the men fought abroad.

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Biology

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Nekoborg:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Biology

What about biology makes us less willing to voulenteer when we are told the future of the country depends on it? If we won't voulenteer then that's all the more reason to draft women in addition to men. If we will then there's no need to draft anyone.

[ハイイロギツネ]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

The women did serve during World War 2 in non combat roles.

They all pulled together and kept the homefront going while the men fought abroad.

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Women are the child bearers.

It's the job of the men to protect them in war time.

[Under there]

lmfao no
they just spent the last 60 years making them physically weak and mentally demoralized
in food, in water, in entertainment, in social structure
you reap what you sow, and in that the one pulling the west's string right now is utterly ♥♥♥♥♥♥ if they need soliders

[Triple G]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Even more so when there´s much military equipment nowadays which basically works like playing a video game, or sitting in an office. Only a small part of the military is infantry, and even then it´s not, that women couldn´t do it, and it´s not that every man could do it. And infantry would be the thing which is about physics. Not driving some tank, or doing the administration work, or being a mechanic, or watching at some screen.

[bluesky66621]

Men of today isn't men of my time. Hell, Americans still confused which pronouns to use. I doubt our military are even capable against the likes of Russia and China or even Iran. It's a shame what we have come to.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Don`t worry, with the way things are going you will get your brand new generation with lifelong PTSD soon enough.

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Women are the child bearers.

It's the job of the men to protect them in war time.

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

[bluesky66621]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Women are the child bearers.

It's the job of the men to protect them in war time.

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

It a military. It has no place for that. That's why Russia and China is running the show. Have you seen their forces? What you pronouns gonna do tickle your enemy, lol.

[ハイイロギツネ]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Women are the child bearers.

It's the job of the men to protect them in war time.

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

Those are a minority, especially in the global South.

It's not just that though, men have a higher testosterone rate which is a huge advantage on the battlefield and at sports.

Yes, there are lesbian women but they have similar testosterone levels to other women unless they are scientific anomalies.

[bluesky66621]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

Those are a minority, especially in the global South.

It's not just that though, men have a higher testosterone rate which is a huge advantage on the battlefield and at sports.

Yes, there are lesbian women but they have similar testosterone levels to other women unless they are scientific anomalies.

In order to go head to head to likes of Russia and China. You gonna need to shed all of that. Pronouns and the like has no place for that. That's the reality of war.

[Under there]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

Those are a minority, especially in the global South.

It's not just that though, men have a higher testosterone rate which is a huge advantage on the battlefield and at sports.

Yes, there are lesbian women but they have similar testosterone levels to other women unless they are scientific anomalies.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

But they weren't told they would be jailed if they didn't fulfill those roles, were they? Why can women do that voulentarily when needed but men supposedly need to be forced?

Women are the child bearers.

It's the job of the men to protect them in war time.

convenient how the militarized egalitarianism we see every day seems to go out the window when its time to die

[RRW359]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Arvaos:

Opprinnelig skrevet av RRW359:

So lesbians and ace women don't exist? And even streight women are equal in number to men so losing one doesn't make the country any worse at creating children then losing a man in a war. Also are you saying women shouldn't even be allowed to voulenteer?

And saying it's your job to do something because of your gender is why people are so desperate to try and change it, if you want to reduce that then stop saying you have certain obligations one way or the other just due to how you were born.

Those are a minority, especially in the global South.

It's not just that though, men have a higher testosterone rate which is a huge advantage on the battlefield and at sports.

Yes, there are lesbian women but they have similar testosterone levels to other women unless they are scientific anomalies.

I already addressed the testosterone issue and so you went the child-bearing route; I mentioned lesbians and such to show that not all women want to bear children and encouraging that hasn't been bad for society. Again if most people actually chosen to be forced to serve are men because we need people with more testosterone instead of individual skills I'm fine with that but that doesn't mean women shouldn't be forced to register to be selected if the military wants to select them just like men are.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

The conscription laws in my country are archaic.

The Finnish Defence Forces are for one thing, defence.

Is that militarized enough? Maybe. They got some fancy things there.

[Triple G]

Usually the main argument is neither testosterone, nor child bearing or anything, but because the women can be distracting. Like the men think about other things than doing their job. Also You can hardly make certain jokes or comments when women are around. I mean the majority of men there are probably around 18 - 30 years old.

So basically the military is male, because the men are too stupid and can´t handle it, and certain wives might be jealous if their man works somehow close together with other, fit women - while they might see each other naked, when they sleep near each other over a longer period of time.

I mean if anything, one should bring the real arguments, not some stuff which sounds like higher goals...


And anyway:
it´s not so much about militarization, it´s about shifting money. Why not invest into something, which earns good money, when it´s funded by the tax payers? Which is why the big investment companies also invest in any such company, because it doesn´t matter much if they´re in competition with each other.