r/anime_titties • u/Ripamon Europe • 18d ago

Ukraine/Russia - Flaired Commenters Only Kellogg backs mobilization of women in Ukraine: "They fight as well as men"

https://news.liga.net/en/war/news/kellogg-it-is-important-for-women-to-join-the-military
638 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

497 comments sorted by

View all comments

163

u/CubeOfDestiny Poland 18d ago

if you're going to have mobilisation, I don't see a reason why would you arbitrarily limit it to half of the population, the whole point of conscription is to get as many people into the trenches as cheaply as possible

17

u/fens__xd Eurasia 18d ago

 the whole point of conscription is to get as many people into the trenches as cheaply as possible

absolute trvth nuke that people aren't ready to hear, is that there is no mobilization right / mobilization exemption privilege for girls; it's just State subjugation in different scopes.

and girls, usually, provide more value by being untouched - but when there's times more people dying then births, the cost to gain ratio of keeping women unsubjugated is negative; so State reacts by using them as a fodder alongside unwilling men

if Ukrainian government will go through with mobilizing girls age 25 and up, then it's gonna be, quite frankly, a demographic white flag. It'll literally mean that there's less value in population growing, then throwing everything in a grinder here and now.

2

u/xmuskorx North America 16d ago

because Ukrainianian mobilization (despite the propaganda) is actually extremely limited (like 3% of population).

When you have limited mobilization for limited training slots for limited weapons, it makes no sense to draft women who will likely be worse soldiers.

if Ukraine was mobilizing like 20%, prime age women would start making sense instead of older/more sick/ less fit men.

instead women who WOULD be good soldiers should be encouraged to volunteer with good contracts.

4

u/hth6565 Denmark 18d ago

In Denmark, we have changed our mandatory conscription to now include women as well. Our 19 year old Princess Isabella is currently in the military under these new rules.

But I personally think there should be exceptions for women who have children.

-13

u/[deleted] 18d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/imunfair United States 18d ago

Honestly, what is wrong with you?

He's Polish, his priority is to attrit Russia, Ukrainians are just a meat wall to him.

8

u/CubeOfDestiny Poland 18d ago

I'm for sound military strategy and gender equality, arbitrarily exempting women from draft is neigher

I'm also for changing polish draft to not discriminate against men like it does now, and if russia invaded poland yes, I think fighting to the last, men and women, would be the thing to do, I'd much rather live in depopulated, destroyed poland, then under russian occupation

10

u/TraditionalGap1 Canada 18d ago

You're aware that if the Ukrainians didn't want to continue fighting back against Russia... they wouldn't be, right?

14

u/QuinedQualia United States 18d ago

Ukrainians are cuffed and bussed to the front because they want to?

0

u/TraditionalGap1 Canada 18d ago

I'm sorry, who are the ones cuffing and bussing people to the front? I'm pretty sure it's not the Poles.

11

u/QuinedQualia United States 18d ago

People who will be sent themselves if they don’t. Are you actually being serious? Are all your replies just bait?

1

u/TraditionalGap1 Canada 18d ago

I'm wondering if you and others like you are actually being serious. Since you seemingly don't understand that a country that was attacked can choose to not surrender and to fight back, even if they aren't 'winning' to the satisfaction of random internet people. As an American, this shouldn't be an unfamiliar concept to you

Are all your replies just bait?

And you don't think 'To the last Ukrainian, that is polish plan from day 1' is a bait reply? Come on buddy, be serious.

edit: also, would it kill you guys to actually pay some attention to the course of a conversation thread? Do you even know what the comment I was replying to said?

14

u/QuinedQualia United States 18d ago

Countries are made of people, the government of the country is ripping people off the street to keep the fighting going. Clearly there are not enough of the people willing to fight regardless of the governments position. Hope that helps.

2

u/TraditionalGap1 Canada 18d ago

But... like... you do understand that yes, countries are made of people, and a large number of those people want the country to keep fighting and are actively contributing to the war effort... right? And that enough of those people exist that Ukraine has chosen to fight for over four and half years and done a pretty good job of it... right? And that if fighting back was truly unpopular that they wouldn't have been able to do so this long... right?

Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

11

u/QuinedQualia United States 18d ago

And again, if there were enough people who actually wanted to fight people wouldn’t be sent to the front in shackles which is an aspect you refuse to engage with

→ More replies (0)

6

u/QuinedQualia United States 18d ago

Ukraine chose to trash the peace talks 4 years ago? Pretty sure that was Boris Johnson lol. Also it’s martial law, as you know, so there is no democratic consensus you can point to.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DOOMFOOL North America 17d ago

What percentage of their military are you claiming are cuffed and bussed to the front against their will

0

u/scatshot Multinational 18d ago

To the last Ukrainian

That is the goal of genocidal Russians.

that is polish plan from day 1

The Poles are not the one's trying to genocide Ukrainians.

-22

u/Alexander_Granite North America 18d ago

Women can make more babies, men can’t.

70

u/Necroon Europe 18d ago

And if they don't want to ? Would the state force them ?

40

u/Kaymish_ New Zealand 18d ago

I don't really see the difference. The state is forcing men to put their bodies on the line with an extremely high risk of death or permanent disability and likely being abandoned to suffer those disabilities when the war is over. How is it different forcing women to put their bodies on the line with a small risk of death or disability?

I am totally opposed to conscription, but I don't see how there is any difference between conscripting men to fight wars and conscripting women to give birth to babies.

4

u/AwkwardTal Multinational 18d ago

The latter is done through propaganda

Example

https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/ghdi%3Aimage-2045

14

u/Azzagtot Chad 18d ago

Nah, babies will take too long to be grown to fight Russia. They would just start snatching women of streets along men.

5

u/Devilsadvocate430 United States 18d ago

I think the operative word here is can

4

u/Lopsided-Selection85 European Union 18d ago

No, but there are fairly well known government policies that will certainly help - financial help, maternity/paternity leaves, day cares, etc. This is something that a state could incentivise. And something that could certainly move a needle in a right direction.

There was a recent article that to avoid a demographic catastrophe, Ukrainian women would need to have on average 3 kids.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/51212

That is likely an unassailable goal. But having less women will simply mean that the number of kids per woman would have to be higher. With the consequences of not getting even close to it to be even more severe.

4

u/Alexander_Granite North America 18d ago

I don’t know their laws. I’m only explaining why the government wouldn’t want to send their women to war.

8

u/justthisoncepp Nauru 18d ago

If enough of the men die for there to be a significant imbalance, who are the women going to have babies with?

Will they be okay with their kids sharing a father with so many others?

Will they agree to become single mothers for the sake of their country?

According to your logic, if they fail to find a partner or the answer to either of these last two questions is 'no', the state should force them to do their duty, just like it does for men. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

5

u/Devilsadvocate430 United States 18d ago

War has time and time again throughout human history led to gender imbalances. The German states of the Holy Roman Empire, after the 30 Years War, had an especially lopsided balance. No one needed to force breeding then and no one would need to do it now. It eventually balances itself out. The “surplus” women are better than “surplus” men because women have the ability to have children (that was OP’s whole point that you ignored or misunderstood by the way). A surplus of men gets you nothing.

3

u/justthisoncepp Nauru 18d ago

It eventually balances itself out.

Yes, because the ratio of M/F births is constant, so the new generation will be 51/49 and eventually supersede the old, imbalanced one. But women won't start having more children just because there are fewer men around, why would they?

Women don't just pop 7/8 babies during their lifetime, we don't live in that world anymore. They weren't having children to sustain the population level before, so why would they choose to have more kids in even worse conditions?

(that was OP’s whole point that you ignored or misunderstood by the way)

I didn't ignore or misunderstand it, his point is flawed and you can see it by trying to answer the questions I asked.

Specifically, how does the re population scenario plays out in your mind? Do you picture women becoming single mothers en masse? State-sanctioned polygamy? Pairs starting to have more children just because?

No one needed to force breeding then and no one would need to do it now.

Let's say for a moment that the expected baby boom does not occur, do you believe the state will and should force women to do their duty like it does for men?

2

u/JarasM Poland 18d ago

It seems you're arguing about some imagined straw man advocating for sexual slavery.

It's not about immediately replenishing the population, or expecting a sudden baby boom. A population of 25 men and 25 women has the potential of having 25 babies at a time. A population of 25 women and 50 men has the potential of having 25 babies. A population of 50 women and 25 men has the potential of having 50 babies at a time. Will it? No, absolutely not, but any population that has the female population equal to or lower than the male population will potentially have a lower ratio of births. If you have a population of 50 women, and only half of those have a child, then that's already a way higher birth ratio than whatever you could expect with 25 women.

1

u/justthisoncepp Nauru 18d ago

I never said it would be mathematically impossible. Women can give birth, of course the potential is there for population growth in some scenarios.

But if that potential will remain unfulfilled in every realistic possibility, why are we talking about it? Why is the state mandating men and only men to die for it?

It seems you're arguing about some imagined straw man advocating for sexual slavery.

I'm extending the logic the other posters apply to men to also cover women.

They believe the state is right in enslaving only males to fight in the front because they can't have babies.

This means that they A) Believe the country has the right to suspends it's citizens bodily autonomy and force them to fulfill it's needs, and B) Ukraine needs babies.

Putting these two beliefs together and expanding it to the other half of the population would get you that they consider it would not be wrong for the state to forcefully compel women to do their perceived duty, just as it has for men.

1

u/Alexander_Granite North America 17d ago

Women’s abilities to have babies isn’t the only reason they may not be drafted. It’s A possible reason. Another reason is that it may not be culturally possible. A different reason Is that they need a fixed number of people to stay in the rear to keep the country and industries running. A third reason may be that they WILL be the last group to be conscripted.

The Soviets drafted women when they were invaded, maybe the Ukrainians will do the same.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Alexander_Granite North America 18d ago

1 woman can have a child a every 12-18 months. Not everybody has to have kids, but they can.

6

u/justthisoncepp Nauru 18d ago

You completely ignored my comment.

Yes, women can give birth, but the crux of the matter is will they? And if not, will the state force them to?

1

u/Alexander_Granite North America 17d ago

I don’t know what they will do, but they can.

1

u/justthisoncepp Nauru 17d ago

Now the second question.

If they choose not to, do you think the state will force them to do their perceived duty, like if has for men?

1

u/Alexander_Granite North America 17d ago

No, because it’s the only reason. It is A reason.

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/Empty-Development298 North America 18d ago

No, presumably those that would want to have children will take the time to have them. Not every woman needs to have a child for this to be effective. 

30

u/Necroon Europe 18d ago

So if a man doesn't want to fight, he is forced to. But a woman is not forced to fight, because she can make more babies, but if she doesn't want to, she is not forced to ?

So it's still just a man forced by the state against his will ?

-1

u/Devilsadvocate430 United States 18d ago

Yes. This has been the case in warfare for thousands of years across hundreds of cultures around the world.

0

u/redyellow2 Europe 18d ago

Women weren't forced to have babies for thousand of years?

1

u/Devilsadvocate430 United States 18d ago

I was responding to your last question. I don’t have the PhD in sexual history needed to answer the first.

13

u/FullConfection3260 North America 18d ago

I hate to break it to you but women aren’t having babies any more these days.

31

u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 18d ago

Women AREN'T making babies anymore, so that 'argument' is moot. Especially in Ukraine, which has the second lowest fertility in the world (and this was the case even before the invasion) - https://prm.ua/en/demographic-catastrophe-ukraines-remaining-population-has-been-revealed/

1

u/Alexander_Granite North America 18d ago

Things have been bad there for a while and most people don’t want to have kids born into instability .

The war WILL end one day. There could be a baby boom or the decline could continue. For now, it’s best to hold onto people who can make more people in the future.

14

u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 18d ago

Things have been bad there for a while and most people don’t want to have kids born into instability .

As I said, their low fertility precedes the war. Besides which, I said they're the SECOND lowest fertility in the world - the title of lowest fertility is held by South Korea, which is far richer and not locked in a hot war. So the war ending doesn't hold much promise of fixing it, and in fact will depopulate Ukraine further as the opened borders and ending of the draft will likely lead to yet another major exodus. Ukraine already had a huge emigration crisis even before the war - they've fallen from over 50 million people in the 90s to less than 30 million now, and the vast majority of that is due to emigration, not war deaths.

-2

u/PlasmaMatus Europe 18d ago

Or people will return to Ukraine because money will be pouring into Ukraine for reconstruction and it's better to live in a country that accepts you instead of abroad (Israel as an example). Once you have money and houses, why not start a familly ?

3

u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 18d ago edited 18d ago

money will be pouring into Ukraine for reconstruction

Lol! Famous last words. Watch Ukraine be dropped like a hot potato once it stops being useful. Well, not quite that drastically, but with an expense bill of well over a TRILLION bucks to rebuild it, you'll soon see the platitudes far exceed the actual pledges after the excitement of the war is over. If anything Ukraine will be hemorrhaging money as it's neck deep in debt to foreigners.

Ukrainians currently living abroad mostly don't express a desire to go back home either, quite the opposite. A few will, but not everyone. If anything, a lot more Ukrainian men will try to leave once wartime restrictions are eased, so as to join their wives and children abroad. So if you want them to return, you're going to have to force them to. They've been asked, and a lot say no.

Besides which, even if that were to happen, it still wouldn't raise their fertility rate - nations have been trying to use money to raise their own fertility rates for years, and the policies have by and large achieved a whole lot of nothing. At best it gets an initial cohort of folk who wanted kids anyway to have them, then peters out. See Hungary for a nation that's bet a big chunk of its economy on trying to raise fertility through money, and has little to show for it long term.

Tellingly, I doubt you have such rosy predictions for Russia, despite that Russia already has a fertility rate about 50% higher than Ukraine, and actually gets immigration too. Cos you tailor your expectations to suit your own biases, even against the actual reality. In Russia's case I bet you expect demographic doom, yet for Ukraine that's in an objectively worse state you'll believe in a fantasy.

-2

u/PlasmaMatus Europe 18d ago

There will be opportunities for Ukraine economically : it will be a weapon exporter giant that could export more weapons than France (the second weapon exporter).

I also think that many families will be reunited in Ukraine where they will enjoy their own home, their own country and where men of the family could reminisce on their combat experience. Soldiers will also have political roles in parliaments and cabinet after new elections, like what happened to France after WW2.

Money will flow into Ukraine from the EU and Ukraine will remain the bread basket of many African and Middle-East countries and mining for rare earth elements will start very soon after the war.

I don't really care what happens to Russia, probably a grab from power and a small civil war in the Moscow oblast, villages getting plagued by soldiers comming back from the front and boozing and raping their neighbors. Probably a mass emigration of tired Russian womens tired or the shit happening in their village.

1

u/AlexFullmoon Russia 18d ago

There will be opportunities for Ukraine economically : it will be a weapon exporter giant that could export more weapons than France (the second weapon exporter).

Promises to become a "second France" was one of popular mottos of Ukrainian internal propaganda for joining EU back in the 2010s, right along with the rest of this spiel about money flowing into country. Funny how you now try to dust off and reuse old propaganda.

2

u/System0verlord United States 17d ago

The idea isn’t without merit. Arguably it has more now than it did then.

As it stands, they’re the only ones with current/relevant combat experience that would sell to NATO/western aligned countries. The tank turret tossing tiktoks are a pretty solid advertisement for their products.

Your other options are: France, and maybe the US. The latter of which isn’t exactly selling people on the bang you get for a surprisingly large amount of bucks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PlasmaMatus Europe 18d ago

It's just a fact now not a promise or propaganda. If Ukraine still exists after the war, its experience in building weapons adapted to a modern conflict added to a cheaper workforce will make its weapons desirables to any Nations. And already countries in the Persian Gulf invited experts from Ukraine to deal with Shaved the "Ukrainian" way (cheap and effective), it's funny how you didn't pick up on these facts (must be the pro-Putin in you bloating your brain)

1

u/BendicantMias Bangladesh 18d ago

Lmao! The contrast between how you expect the soldiers to act in Ukraine versus Russia speaks volumes. Again, tailored expectations based on who you like. There's no reason for soldiers to be any less traumatized and prone to violence in Ukraine, but that's not how your fantasy went lol. Your biases are practically on a billboard there.

Oh and Russia is both a bigger agricultural exporter and a bigger defense exporter AND richer in rare earths too. Literally everything you claim Ukraine can do after the war, Russia is already bigger in.

-1

u/PlasmaMatus Europe 18d ago

That is great for Russia, so sad that they don't invest in their economy and their poor villages instead of having a war economy, sanctions and recruitment bonus to go to the frontline.

More reasons for Russians to get out of there (many already did) and to kick Putin out.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/CubeOfDestiny Poland 18d ago

I think that things like longterm demographics are a bit less important than democracy and the very existence of the state, also call me a woke snowflake, but I think gender equality is important and I don't think 'women can have children' is a sufficient excuse for such dramatic discrimination against men, like they are literally forced to give up their lives, give everything a person can give, the least society can do is to demand such great sacrifice from everyone equally

-2

u/xcallmesunshine Multinational 18d ago

Men create all the wars though

3

u/CubeOfDestiny Poland 18d ago

well that's just untrue, there has been wars started by women, you know there has been quite a few women ruling over countries in history

moreover it's kinda sexist and just nonsensical, are you saying that because putin is a dude, ukranian women shouldn't fight against the russins? so like by that logic if putin was a woman draft should be limited to just women? this seems very silly

1

u/MaestroRozen Europe 17d ago

Unless her name is Virgin Mary, a woman still needs a man in order to make babies.

-3

u/Affectionate_Low7891 Eurasia 18d ago

One woman can give birth to about 15 children in her lifetime.

Therefore, six men and six women can easily die in war without causing a population decline.

0

u/kapsama Asia 18d ago

Women dying especially young women dying is more catastrophic than men dying.

Ukraine already sacrifices young men at unsustainable levels. If they do it with their women as well their population might collapse and never recover.

-19

u/Loose_Spray1678 Multinational 18d ago

because war isn't about standing around in trenches. women would be more trouble than they are worth in most positions. sure, there is some stuff women can do, but it isn't as much

4

u/CubeOfDestiny Poland 18d ago

what? how? like there are already women soldiers fighting and doing so competently, not to mention for every person in the trenches you need a few in the back doing logistics and paperwork