• graphito@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s not the question of men Vs women being expendable, it’s the issue of requiring citizens to die on behalf of elites. We as citizens gotta work to redefine and restructure wars – not to reduce value of some social group

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    Even if we reduce human existence to pure biology it’s still nonsense because we aren’t exactly endangered species.

  • pingveno
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    The draft, at least in the US, is an outdated institution. Professional armed forces are both more effective and less prone to human rights abuses. That said, it should absolutely include everyone regardless of gender. Viewing men as “expendable” is nothing more than pseudo-science bullshit.

  • Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    this statement has way too many contradictions to even respond to it correctly. ‘expendable’ is capitalist doublespeak for anti-humanism

  • holdengreen@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    from a population standpoint they might be more so than women because it takes women a lot more time and energy to produce more children…

    doesn’t mean anyone should die for capitalism and society needs men too.

    • Slatlun
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yep, private 1st class if we work hard after being drafted.

  • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    A 1916(?) Draft amendment to the US Constitution would have fixed this. It would have required that war be put to a vote among the general population and those who voted yes must register for the armed forces.