Men in general are more disposable. The human population could be sustained with a smaller number of men than women. Or, from hardly any men and a well-stocked sperm bank.
The US does not require women to register for the draft. And our current political leadership over the military is actively attempting to take women out of combat and leadership roles.
I scrolled till this comment on disbelief that everybody fail/pretend not to notice, just incredible.
really for some people the concept of equality is a transaction, when you give me is ok when is my time I'm distracted... "is all a construct" until "this is the traditional way bro come on", disgusting.
Kurds* yes and Sweden as well. I agree, it's not like people are running around swinging broadswords, maces and war axes anymore. Anyone without a disability can run and pull a trigger or do all those technical jobs.
> Anyone without a disability can run and pull a trigger
This is very much untrue in terms of being a soldier in a high-functioning military.
Technically, you’re not wrong (at least for lighter weapons). That said, there are many more physically demanding things that are involved in doing infantry things (which is what you’re describing) other than running and pulling a trigger (and ideally hitting the target).
> or do all those technical jobs.
Depends on the job, but much more likely.
The vast majority of the jobs in the military are not infantry or infantry-type jobs, so I can see a lot more scope for drafted women who aren’t cut out for infantry doing these things.
Technical jobs yes. Infantry still requires a lot of physical strength. I'd welcome anyone who has that strength to be in the infantry, but anyone who can't, male or female, should not be in the infantry, or any job that might require dragging heavy people or heavy equipment.
In 2006, the Federal Administrative Court justified the absence of compulsory military service for women in a ruling, citing, among other reasons, that women face greater burdens in the domestic sphere than men and that this alone would justify their exemption from military service obligations.
So military service is seen as a service like healthcare and care services where women already do most of the work, mostly privately and unpaid.
Right, completely unpaid, which is why most women who take care of family members don’t acquire any pension and social security benefits for that work.
That’s why many of them don’t have the time for a full time paid job and either work part time or don’t have a job at all.
They have a job and they are paid for it. They also do have pensions and social security benefits: through their husbands. If the husband remains alive, they continue to be paid as they were before retirement. If he dies, they often inherent his pension and assets. It's a terrible system and we need to modernize it but you're still wrong on all of your points.
In a divorce, they typically get half of all assets, child support and alimony. Like I said, it's a terrible system, but you're also terribly misinformed.
»You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge«
There is a reason why Elisabeth Selbert, Helene Weber, Frieda Nadig, and Helene Wessel had to fight in the Parliamentary Council of 1948–49 to add the phrase “Men and women have equal rights” to the constitution despite initial resistance.
It took another decade before women could have bank account or a job with their husbands' permission.
It took until 1997 before martial rape was a officially a crime.
And even now where we have an alleged case of fake porn and identity theft by the husband of famous woman, is the first reaction of the CDU deflection:
We can’t discuss violence against women with considering the image of women in Islam.
What a bunch of nonsense.
These are distinct problems that can easily handled separately.
But it’s always the same pattern, the scapegoats are either poor, jobless or migrants but don’t ever touch the real problems.
I mean... Yes. Not in the in the dark sense, but in the "working as designed, and you weren't around to be asked input from" sense. Jefferson was really big on sunset dates on these sorts of things specifically so each generation could weigh in on the old and change things over time instead of living in an ossified mausoleum of the collective institutional detritus of the dead.
>The best part is it started with my reply simply stating the current legal facts it got downvoted into oblivion
Except you didn't state "the current legal facts," you delusionally posted unfactual nonsense. "The current legal facts" are they get half of the marital assets, alimony, child support, stock options/retirement/pensions/etc. earned while married, etc.
But then we also can't request 50% of CEOs being women or any job with that arguments ?
Wouldn't it be more fair to be excused if you actually can prove that you're taking care of familly members regardless of man/woman ? Why would a perfectly able 20 year old woman be excuzed by default based on her sex ?
You are excused from military service if you have to take care of family members, but it’s so rarely done by men compared to women that it is less work to handle the exceptions than changing the law and create more paperwork
I more astound by the mental gymnastics how people can point at every single thing where women get an advantage but at the same tome ignore all the others where they are still disadvantaged
Just like when Ukraine did this, nobody cared. No complaints in the media at all.
They always want more women in the offices too, never in the coal mines.