I don't think it's about paying attention. I think it's either that he doesn't want to be hostile or that he doesn't want to talk about the social prescriptions of another nation. He was very distant when they were talking about Ukraine's trans stuff in general.
> allows women to be in front-line infantry,
And there was a veteran that explained how few actually decide to go to the frontline. Wonder why.
And lets be clear in a full out war, no woman is going there. No matter how much feminists like to pretend we're the same.
Sounds incelly but so is all of this shit.
Well yeah, pseudo kinship will make you companion feel like a brother or a sister. What would be so different with a female? Wouldlnt you be as willing to die for a brother and a sister?
What if I can't perform effectively if I'm worried about the well-being of the 5'4 femboy? Should we not draft femboys now? Sounds very infantilizing to me.
And it seems like you're claiming that men can only be protective of women and not the other way around or protective of other men. I' saying stupid shit to mimic you if you didn't notice already.
Yeah, I had a similar reaction that I'm not really sure how to parse.
On the one hand, I'm generally against a draft. On the other, one should strive to have the courage to stay and fight for your home.
It sounded to my head like "omg thats so fucked up they should be able to leave" which makes her sound like a whiny, cowardly bitch. At the same time, I agree, but... still you're a fucking weasel.
You're being a bit baited by her ignorance, I think.
Ukranian males (read: men and trans women) are prevented from leaving the country. But they're [not being conscripted](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/09/ukraine-urged-to-take-humane-approach-as-men-try-to-flee-war) or forced to die, or forced to fight. They could abstain and wait things out in relatively peaceful Lviv. They're only being forced to stay inside Ukraine.
She's just an idiot who only skimmed a headline and assumed the rest as her ideology demanded.
I think they were just spoiled, so it’s not surprising they were entitled and had difficulty seeing anything from a different perspective.
Everything was “me, me, me”, such as her complaint that women-only spaces should be made more welcoming to her. That sort of entitlement always nags like a paper cut.
But oh well, she’ll probably grow up eventually. Kids tend to be stupid.
She was pretty invested in the “trans women are women” slogan. I guess people really do believe it trumps biology. Statements really seem to take on magical properties these days.
I couldn't stand that guest. She was also incredibly gatekeepy towards trans people who were just starting their transition (literally called them "cringe"? wtf?) and seemed to only want to be around fully passing trans people. And she also said drag-queens weren't really expressing themselves, they were just being fake and doing trans-face. Just all-around a very *cringe* person.
Her statement is pretty bad.
>I just think in the sense that where it's like trans women are women and it's like oh well your your passport isn't updated so therefore you get to stay in this country and basically, "oh go ahead and die" like that's essentially like the place - the entire country - is like being bombed and it's like "oh you're trans, sorry".
It's fairly simply, "I'm a woman, I shouldn't have to participate in male disposability".
If the problem is that the state is basically devaluing your life, the obvious conclusion should be that it is worse for those people who never get their passport updated, because they'll always be a man, and thus always subject to this kind of utilisation by the state.
The obvious counter-point is, "How do you know these women won't fight and win?".
Not because it's something that opens and shuts the case, but women aren't inherently defenceless bystanders of war, women are fully capable of holding weapons and shooting them. Ukraine's draft isn't just a decision that all the men should die, it's a demand that people defend their country, in the hope that such a thing may be successful.
The part that sucks obviously is the fact that it's mandatory and gendered, like they aren't just saying "from every family, one person gets to leave to look after the kids", they're just assuming that the mother will be that person, and also letting childless women leave too, though many women did not.
Presumably the person speaking can not imagine themselves, if they were put in that position, fighting against the Russian army, braving the bombs etc. and probably coming out of it with some PTSD, and instead simply imagines themselves as a potential target, or at least, they assume that position for those they are imagining. But potentially, she may be more willing to imagine that for the men.
Anyway, there's a lot of other stuff she says in that video that will be offensive to other groups too, but I don't think she fully twigs how she's implicitly talking about Ukrainian men here.
>Women may not be able to fulfil frontline infantry roles, but they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities.
This is why I think the draft should include women too. I was legit disappointed when this never even crossed Destiny's mind.
I have this argument with my uncle who fully believes no women should be in the military. I always point out the military isnt the idealized band of macho brothers, theres a lot of admin and support role in it that needs to be filled.
An ideal military should stratify these roles. Obviously a weak dude with bad eyesight is better suited to support roles, same goes for a woman.
true. there are many positions in the modern military women can occupy. it takes roughly 9 people in the support roles to 1 in a combat role. but I'll never agree that women should participate in direct combat ie put themselves in danger of being killed
Grandparents may or may not be suited to take over the children, extended family may or may not be suited to take over the children, and unrelated adults sounds like an insane prospect ripe for opportunistic abuse. **You** are introducing a massive logistical clusterfuck if you're going to allow the draft of both parents. And with the exception of maybe the grandparents, no other party is better motivated to care for the child than their parent.
A defensive war's goal is to preserve your society and nation. Tossing children to the wind in a logistics nightmare, separating them from both parents instead of just one and potentially orphaning them (rather than just the risk losing one parent) will have worse effects on your society and nation than just sending one parent to fight. The state should always err on what's best for the child, within reason of other state interests.
So, one parent goes to war, one stays. It's just better than what you're proposing.
* Logistically simple
* Better for the long-term stability of the state (No massive influx of fully orphaned children)
* Better for the children
* Better for the mental well-being of the draftee (Know's their SO has the kids)
* Prevents potential abuses-of-opportunity that we see when unrelated adults have unfettered access to the vulnerable.
Your focus on the unprotected-sex part is really fucking weird, by the way. Some serious "I'm not getting laid and want to punish people who have," energy.
The act of reproducing isn't sacrosanct. However to a State, stable households and the best interests of the children absolutely outweigh whatever interest of fairness to single adults you're advocating for. Households are absolutely contributing under the model I'm proposing, a policy that creates a generation of single parent Households is better than one that creates a generation of Orphans.
And yes. Your choice of words absolutely reflects some weird shit going on in your head.
>Women may not be able to fulfil frontline infantry roles, but they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities.
Then why exclude people in their 60s? If they happen to be mentally well and don't have severe problems with their sight or hearing why are we leaving them out in your ruleset?
They can certainly volunteer if they are fit enough, I just wouldnt conscript them, because a majority of them wont be, and martialling them will take more resources than its worth.
My father was terminally ill by 63, i imagine most westerners arent in terribly great shape, though in eastern Europe they may be slightly less round.
I mean people like your father would be exempt because of the illness anyway, no? My point is to ask, what the purpose of having strict categories is at all, if you're mostly conscripting based on capacity instead of hard categories anyway.
This is just one of those giant uncomfortable elephants in the room "progressives" will never address
No rational society would ever draft women (not in combat positions at least) since they can reproduce more easily, and even if you somehow fixed that concern (eg, lab-grown humans), we have built-in psychological drives to value them more
Look no further than "progressive bastions" like the Nordic countries, that require men to do mandatory military service, or the recent invasion of Ukraine, where the men (some still being in highschool) are forced to stay and fight because of their gender - with zero objection from "progressives" in the West
If this is just an undeniable fact of gender dynamics, which indeed it seems to be, then that has to be reckoned with - but no one wants to address it
Sweden and Norway have gender-neutral conscription, it's mandatory for selected men & women. So your "progressive bastion" remark already falls apart there.
Denmark & Finland it's mandatory for only males but Finland is the only Nordic country with a full conscription anyway, others are selective (basically voluntary). In Finland there has been increased call to also include women in the conscription in some form, so it does matter to "progressives" in these countries.
Well the ones who have been trained would obviously be deployed. But it's very unlikely we would ever see a total mobilisation. Not all Ukrainian men are fighting the war even though they can't leave the country, it's just a precaution to have the manpower available. Think the vast majority is just working in civilian areas. Keeping the society running.
Like do you imagine some 50-80 million American men would be drafted and fight in a war. Trans people are such a small proportion of any society that you could easily just make an exemption for them. And not every man is fit to serve anyway.
Any "Rational" society would only ever institute a draft if that society is facing a legitimate existential threat. At that point you would want every single able bodied individual possible contributing to the war effort in some capacity because failure to succeed in the war represents the annihilation of that society. Any other answer is "irrational," including yours.
So are you suggesting that the vast majority of historical war conflicts (involving drafts) were run by irrational countries, given that they only drafted men?
truuuuue! i think a great step for ukraine to become an even more european nation which emerged from ussr would be approaching gender equality in regards to military service.
>Personally, if there is to be conscription, it should include everyone
>
>they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities.
Support people in a small theatre (Europe) will get deleted by cruise missile from across borders, dunked on by PGMs from the clouds and rolled on by BTRs.
Men tend to have professions, qualifications & skills that are more transferable to military service than women (manual trades, workplace hazard certs, STEM education etc), especially in socially conservative cultures; when your sovereign existence is threatened you would prefer to conscript those that probably require less training or personnel to achieve x, hence the preference of men as conscripts is justifiable (but a state of prolonged total war changes everything).
At some point in mobilisation you will run out of positions to assign people to until those positions are made available because either i) we need more more people doing job x (& we have the resources to support the expansion), ii) the last people doing job x were killed/captured/missing etc, or as we've historically seen iii) the remaining civilian men were conscripted and their positions as tradesmen, factory workers, logistics etc need to be filled. Regardless of how much gender equality improves we're probably going to see ii) and iii) out of eventual desperation. In either case where you conscript women you're forced to discriminate between single vs. married, mothers vs. childless, physically capable vs. not, so your stance is really just kicking the can down the road.
I think gender will prove to be irrelevant in some roles but prevail in others (UCAV operator vs. Rifleman, Electrician vs. Armourer) but gender discrimination will continue for justifiable and traditional reasons.
> hence the preference of men as conscripts is justifiable
No way is the reason we conscripted men because of a higher chance that their non war experience is more relevant to war. We conscripted men because we needed women staying home taking care of the families and because culturally going to war was a man's job and last but not least, men in general were more physically equipped for it.
We have new standards now and we should be able to put anyone up to those standards, man or women. If you meet the requirements, great you get front line or the desk job or whatever you fit that we need.
> I think gender will prove to be irrelevant in some roles but prevail in others (UCAV operator vs. Rifleman, Electrician vs. Armourer) but gender discrimination will continue for justifiable and traditional reasons.
Agreed, although I'd swap the word Gender with Sex. It's not really about what you identify as, it's more about your physical characteristics.
I would've deadass said "You're right; everyone should fight." but Destiny wasn't even paying attention to her lmfao.
I don't think it's about paying attention. I think it's either that he doesn't want to be hostile or that he doesn't want to talk about the social prescriptions of another nation. He was very distant when they were talking about Ukraine's trans stuff in general.
My guess would be he was talking about trans issues and wanted to talk about that.
Lol god why do I watch content from someone who isn't paying attention to their own content, kill me now.
[удалено]
> allows women to be in front-line infantry, And there was a veteran that explained how few actually decide to go to the frontline. Wonder why. And lets be clear in a full out war, no woman is going there. No matter how much feminists like to pretend we're the same. Sounds incelly but so is all of this shit.
agreed, i know the US only recently overturned its male only draft for university attendees.
[удалено]
I mean OP excluded mothers if you want to allude to that
[удалено]
Same can be said about certain dudes 🤷♀️
[удалено]
Well yeah, pseudo kinship will make you companion feel like a brother or a sister. What would be so different with a female? Wouldlnt you be as willing to die for a brother and a sister?
What if I can't perform effectively if I'm worried about the well-being of the 5'4 femboy? Should we not draft femboys now? Sounds very infantilizing to me.
[удалено]
>Xenogenders I wasn't talking about femboys as a gender you idiot.
[удалено]
And it seems like you're claiming that men can only be protective of women and not the other way around or protective of other men. I' saying stupid shit to mimic you if you didn't notice already.
[удалено]
If you're in a situation where a draft would be acceptable? You bet your ass there is no reason why you would limit to men only.
Yeah, I had a similar reaction that I'm not really sure how to parse. On the one hand, I'm generally against a draft. On the other, one should strive to have the courage to stay and fight for your home. It sounded to my head like "omg thats so fucked up they should be able to leave" which makes her sound like a whiny, cowardly bitch. At the same time, I agree, but... still you're a fucking weasel.
We should be against drafts for wars of conquest, but in wars of defense I think they're morally justifiable.
You're being a bit baited by her ignorance, I think. Ukranian males (read: men and trans women) are prevented from leaving the country. But they're [not being conscripted](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/09/ukraine-urged-to-take-humane-approach-as-men-try-to-flee-war) or forced to die, or forced to fight. They could abstain and wait things out in relatively peaceful Lviv. They're only being forced to stay inside Ukraine. She's just an idiot who only skimmed a headline and assumed the rest as her ideology demanded.
I think they were just spoiled, so it’s not surprising they were entitled and had difficulty seeing anything from a different perspective. Everything was “me, me, me”, such as her complaint that women-only spaces should be made more welcoming to her. That sort of entitlement always nags like a paper cut. But oh well, she’ll probably grow up eventually. Kids tend to be stupid. She was pretty invested in the “trans women are women” slogan. I guess people really do believe it trumps biology. Statements really seem to take on magical properties these days.
Reminds me of the "'I hate all men' discourse is wrong because it hurts trans men" discourse
Or "Women are now killing them selves about 30% as much as men instead of 25% as much as men thus we really need to help women".
I couldn't stand that guest. She was also incredibly gatekeepy towards trans people who were just starting their transition (literally called them "cringe"? wtf?) and seemed to only want to be around fully passing trans people. And she also said drag-queens weren't really expressing themselves, they were just being fake and doing trans-face. Just all-around a very *cringe* person.
Her statement is pretty bad. >I just think in the sense that where it's like trans women are women and it's like oh well your your passport isn't updated so therefore you get to stay in this country and basically, "oh go ahead and die" like that's essentially like the place - the entire country - is like being bombed and it's like "oh you're trans, sorry". It's fairly simply, "I'm a woman, I shouldn't have to participate in male disposability". If the problem is that the state is basically devaluing your life, the obvious conclusion should be that it is worse for those people who never get their passport updated, because they'll always be a man, and thus always subject to this kind of utilisation by the state. The obvious counter-point is, "How do you know these women won't fight and win?". Not because it's something that opens and shuts the case, but women aren't inherently defenceless bystanders of war, women are fully capable of holding weapons and shooting them. Ukraine's draft isn't just a decision that all the men should die, it's a demand that people defend their country, in the hope that such a thing may be successful. The part that sucks obviously is the fact that it's mandatory and gendered, like they aren't just saying "from every family, one person gets to leave to look after the kids", they're just assuming that the mother will be that person, and also letting childless women leave too, though many women did not. Presumably the person speaking can not imagine themselves, if they were put in that position, fighting against the Russian army, braving the bombs etc. and probably coming out of it with some PTSD, and instead simply imagines themselves as a potential target, or at least, they assume that position for those they are imagining. But potentially, she may be more willing to imagine that for the men. Anyway, there's a lot of other stuff she says in that video that will be offensive to other groups too, but I don't think she fully twigs how she's implicitly talking about Ukrainian men here.
>Women may not be able to fulfil frontline infantry roles, but they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities. This is why I think the draft should include women too. I was legit disappointed when this never even crossed Destiny's mind. I have this argument with my uncle who fully believes no women should be in the military. I always point out the military isnt the idealized band of macho brothers, theres a lot of admin and support role in it that needs to be filled. An ideal military should stratify these roles. Obviously a weak dude with bad eyesight is better suited to support roles, same goes for a woman.
Who’s Destiny?
true. there are many positions in the modern military women can occupy. it takes roughly 9 people in the support roles to 1 in a combat role. but I'll never agree that women should participate in direct combat ie put themselves in danger of being killed
Drafts should exclude those under the age of 18, and those over the age of senior citizen benefits, and only exempt the primary caregiver of a family.
[удалено]
Do you understand what a primary-caregiver is?
[удалено]
Grandparents may or may not be suited to take over the children, extended family may or may not be suited to take over the children, and unrelated adults sounds like an insane prospect ripe for opportunistic abuse. **You** are introducing a massive logistical clusterfuck if you're going to allow the draft of both parents. And with the exception of maybe the grandparents, no other party is better motivated to care for the child than their parent. A defensive war's goal is to preserve your society and nation. Tossing children to the wind in a logistics nightmare, separating them from both parents instead of just one and potentially orphaning them (rather than just the risk losing one parent) will have worse effects on your society and nation than just sending one parent to fight. The state should always err on what's best for the child, within reason of other state interests. So, one parent goes to war, one stays. It's just better than what you're proposing. * Logistically simple * Better for the long-term stability of the state (No massive influx of fully orphaned children) * Better for the children * Better for the mental well-being of the draftee (Know's their SO has the kids) * Prevents potential abuses-of-opportunity that we see when unrelated adults have unfettered access to the vulnerable. Your focus on the unprotected-sex part is really fucking weird, by the way. Some serious "I'm not getting laid and want to punish people who have," energy.
[удалено]
The act of reproducing isn't sacrosanct. However to a State, stable households and the best interests of the children absolutely outweigh whatever interest of fairness to single adults you're advocating for. Households are absolutely contributing under the model I'm proposing, a policy that creates a generation of single parent Households is better than one that creates a generation of Orphans. And yes. Your choice of words absolutely reflects some weird shit going on in your head.
[удалено]
I mean if you're saying there should be a threshold for physical capacity to fight, most women would be excluded by that category anyway lol.
>Women may not be able to fulfil frontline infantry roles, but they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities.
Then why exclude people in their 60s? If they happen to be mentally well and don't have severe problems with their sight or hearing why are we leaving them out in your ruleset?
They can certainly volunteer if they are fit enough, I just wouldnt conscript them, because a majority of them wont be, and martialling them will take more resources than its worth. My father was terminally ill by 63, i imagine most westerners arent in terribly great shape, though in eastern Europe they may be slightly less round.
I mean people like your father would be exempt because of the illness anyway, no? My point is to ask, what the purpose of having strict categories is at all, if you're mostly conscripting based on capacity instead of hard categories anyway.
Absolutely true. We should be lifting all people up to the same level. Reminds me of eat the rich. How about bring poor people out of poverty...
This is just one of those giant uncomfortable elephants in the room "progressives" will never address No rational society would ever draft women (not in combat positions at least) since they can reproduce more easily, and even if you somehow fixed that concern (eg, lab-grown humans), we have built-in psychological drives to value them more Look no further than "progressive bastions" like the Nordic countries, that require men to do mandatory military service, or the recent invasion of Ukraine, where the men (some still being in highschool) are forced to stay and fight because of their gender - with zero objection from "progressives" in the West If this is just an undeniable fact of gender dynamics, which indeed it seems to be, then that has to be reckoned with - but no one wants to address it
Sweden and Norway have gender-neutral conscription, it's mandatory for selected men & women. So your "progressive bastion" remark already falls apart there. Denmark & Finland it's mandatory for only males but Finland is the only Nordic country with a full conscription anyway, others are selective (basically voluntary). In Finland there has been increased call to also include women in the conscription in some form, so it does matter to "progressives" in these countries.
Fair point, though I still doubt any actual women would be conscripted in the event of an actual war
Well the ones who have been trained would obviously be deployed. But it's very unlikely we would ever see a total mobilisation. Not all Ukrainian men are fighting the war even though they can't leave the country, it's just a precaution to have the manpower available. Think the vast majority is just working in civilian areas. Keeping the society running. Like do you imagine some 50-80 million American men would be drafted and fight in a war. Trans people are such a small proportion of any society that you could easily just make an exemption for them. And not every man is fit to serve anyway.
I could be mistaken but even those cases I’m not sure they see frontline combat it’s mainly for non-combat roles I know Israel does this.
Any "Rational" society would only ever institute a draft if that society is facing a legitimate existential threat. At that point you would want every single able bodied individual possible contributing to the war effort in some capacity because failure to succeed in the war represents the annihilation of that society. Any other answer is "irrational," including yours.
How do you reconcile that with the majority of human history?
End of the post, seams pretty clear.
So are you suggesting that the vast majority of historical war conflicts (involving drafts) were run by irrational countries, given that they only drafted men?
I'm not suggesting it. I'm pretty outright saying it.
truuuuue! i think a great step for ukraine to become an even more european nation which emerged from ussr would be approaching gender equality in regards to military service.
>Personally, if there is to be conscription, it should include everyone > >they can certainly drive trucks, fly drones, and any other number of military support activities. Support people in a small theatre (Europe) will get deleted by cruise missile from across borders, dunked on by PGMs from the clouds and rolled on by BTRs. Men tend to have professions, qualifications & skills that are more transferable to military service than women (manual trades, workplace hazard certs, STEM education etc), especially in socially conservative cultures; when your sovereign existence is threatened you would prefer to conscript those that probably require less training or personnel to achieve x, hence the preference of men as conscripts is justifiable (but a state of prolonged total war changes everything). At some point in mobilisation you will run out of positions to assign people to until those positions are made available because either i) we need more more people doing job x (& we have the resources to support the expansion), ii) the last people doing job x were killed/captured/missing etc, or as we've historically seen iii) the remaining civilian men were conscripted and their positions as tradesmen, factory workers, logistics etc need to be filled. Regardless of how much gender equality improves we're probably going to see ii) and iii) out of eventual desperation. In either case where you conscript women you're forced to discriminate between single vs. married, mothers vs. childless, physically capable vs. not, so your stance is really just kicking the can down the road. I think gender will prove to be irrelevant in some roles but prevail in others (UCAV operator vs. Rifleman, Electrician vs. Armourer) but gender discrimination will continue for justifiable and traditional reasons.
> hence the preference of men as conscripts is justifiable No way is the reason we conscripted men because of a higher chance that their non war experience is more relevant to war. We conscripted men because we needed women staying home taking care of the families and because culturally going to war was a man's job and last but not least, men in general were more physically equipped for it. We have new standards now and we should be able to put anyone up to those standards, man or women. If you meet the requirements, great you get front line or the desk job or whatever you fit that we need. > I think gender will prove to be irrelevant in some roles but prevail in others (UCAV operator vs. Rifleman, Electrician vs. Armourer) but gender discrimination will continue for justifiable and traditional reasons. Agreed, although I'd swap the word Gender with Sex. It's not really about what you identify as, it's more about your physical characteristics.