I blame the cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's.

voting without duty to the nation gave a voice to control the nation without a stake in said nation after all

compassion without empathy (the most common brand) is absolutely deadly

Women suffrage did not help us, no.

We could probably make the system work with women's suffrage

but not much thought was put to it

politicians do the easy thing, and appeal to blind compassion

@Beemann think about this, you sign the draft to get the right to vote. Those who did not sign the draft and will not suffer the effects of war get the full voice to send you to die in some godawful place. They can vote for any war they want but YOU pay that price

which has disastrous consequences

open borders are compassionate in the immediate

but ultimately cruel

when society is forced to bear the costs

this distinction is not drawn and not adequately illuminated by platforms

because it is nuanced and therefore difficult to make into bite-sized memes

>add wahmen to the draft
>not every man is eligible for service

bite-sized memes are the currency of elections

Would be my two "counterpoints"

sufferagates were terrorists, and the minority to be honest. They blocked exits to building that had people in them and set them on fire. They used explosives to commit acts of terror. Most women at the time didn't want the responsibility to vote, they didn't want to serve in the draft

Oh absolutely. Im aware of the history there

I'm okay with universal eligibility

but changing the standards of the draft to seek an outcome is retarded

the military, volunteer or otherwise, should not accept women who are weaker and more useless than men who are equally weak, who they would not accept.

I think the problem with pushing the notion of wahmen in the draft is that people seem to think draft = GI

but service now doesn't always entail combat, peace corp and reserves exist as well

that is how isreal functions still

sure, then change the criteria for real

Military service includes desk jobs

instead of broadening the general criteria

Agreed

it also includes job training like engineering and medical

you can get the military to pay your way into a lot of medical fields

With the understanding that every member of the military, excluding certain excluded professions, is a legitimate target in times of war.

But for a given role, there should not be a rubric for each sex.

Either the general rubric is too strict, or the women who pass the specialized one should not.

doesn't need to be limited when we are self selecting anyway, that is redundent

why place a limit that copies the natural tendencies of the people selecting the job anyway, and if the limit is counter to the natural decisions people makes that is like shooting yourself in the leg

Unless sex diversity is a legitimate strength of a team, as is the case in certain peace-keeping missions, or community security missions, the rubric should not change.

And if there *is* a legitimate case for it, that is a separate rubric altogether.

any role, and it's obvious need will attract those that qualify and will benefit from filling that role. No need to force people into a field when the field itself is what will attract them

because "we need a woman here because the locals don't think that it is appropriate for a man to interrogate a woman, and it loses us hearts and minds", then there is a new role (just like medic or combat engineer) which has a hard requirement of a person who will be considered female by the locals.

if a role calls for more compassionate people, then it will naturally attract those that express more compassion