ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
12hr ago
thousands during WW2
How many men died? Just an order of magnitude estimate will do.
Not that this is even necessary; men are more than willing to vote themselves into going to war even without universal sufferage re: WW1, or revoke their own ability to resist being conscripted like they did in Russia (not that it would helped; WW2 was existential for them).
Do the female soldiers who joined the military get an exemption in your book?
In aggregate (which, let's be clear, is what we're talking about here) they do not. It's not even limited to protecting against foreign enemies; women more than men support things like decarceration, because the consequences (that being more violent crime) are disproportionately unlikely to affect them. That's what "moral hazard" means- no skin in the game means the freedom to make stupid choices.
Yes, Kipling said the female is more dangerous than the male, because
the way a woman commits violence is by convincing a man to do it on her behalf. Therefore, as someone who does not know (or need to care) about what that actually costs, it's more likely she will seek a violent solution and cheer it on.
Women shouldn't have a say in foreign policy if it's not them who will be sent to die over it. This is merely controlling a moral hazard- violence is very literally sex work (as in, "work performed by one's sex") and in a fair system should be treated as such.
And the fact most mothers do not perceive what you've described as rape of their sons is the entire problem.
More options
Context Copy link