Some of my colleagues discuss politics sometimes, and I have tried to discuss things like these.

I am stunned by the lack of interest to discuss male issues with the same kind of enthusiasm that women have when discussing women's issues.

Very few seem to be interested in even acknowledging that we men on average have a worse attitude to the concept of risk. I have tried to use a non-political topic such as extreme sports (just to try to carry the topic in a different way), with very few constructive discussions.

I agree, such blatant discrimination. I fully expect the feminist garde to be on the streets protesting this awful move.

> According to the Journal of Exercise Physiology, women generally produce about two-thirds the amount of total strength and applied force that men produce.

Wars are not a matter of physical strength, being biologically weaker wouldn't prevent a woman from, say, operating a drone.

Agree. But we have to keep this limitation in mind. There could be situations where you have to carry a drone or batteries from place to place for example.

Sure, we use a couple of Hanks for that. Sherley and Melinda will catch the bullets just fine.

If you are sitting in a air condition office in Germany operating drones, it doesn't matter much.

In a war, if you are anywhere near the frontline physical strength is of vital importance.

In the most basic form, can you pick up a fallen soldier and carry that soldier out of harm's way?

However, I know many women who are far stronger than me, and would be more useful in the frontline than me.

Gender is not the only factor.

So with suitable technology we should have our womens’ armies ready to march in no time. Can’t wait. Gender neutrality is a worthy and lofty goal.

I hear they are better communicators too. I see no downsides.

Women are also harder to hit targets - and women can operate most guns quite easily.

> and women can operate most guns quite easily.

No they can't, assault rifles are made for a male build and strength, women have significantly harder time using them. I was in the military and the women had a really hard time passing the basic tests for assault rifles since they had shorter arms and weaker upper body strength.

Can women do it with training? Yes, but basically every man can do it without training, I've seen it myself. And if those women doesn't keep up that strength as civilians they wont be able to use the assault rifle properly if they need to.

Edit: As for being smaller, being able to wear body armor is more important. Level 3 body armor is standard for combat situations and that is heavy, ammunition is also very heavy. Typical combat gear is about 20-30kg in total, that is heavy even for men and untrained men get significantly slower from it but they can still operate. That is for a basic infantryman with just combat equipment, no food or anything, that is the minimum to fight.

One would think that, if the situation were this dire, women would also be conscripted.

Yes, I can sort of understand an existing law staying in place because of inertia, but introducing a new law in this day an age just seems weird.

You are literally asking men to pay more towards the state (in time) than women.

With retirement ages being the same, but women living longer they are in reality asked to pay more in time as of part of total... Men are hugely discriminated. And no one is protecting their rights...

In Russia the retirement age for women is 5 years lower despite women having a longer expectation of life than men.

You could argue that an equal retirement age is equality though.

Otherwise anyone with a health condition that shortens their life span could argue that they should be able to retire earlier.

Even if we disregard the gender discrimination aspect, the draft is the most blatant violation of human rights present in (some) developed countries.

how should a country under existential threat defend itself if military training of male population hurts someone's feelings?

Existential threat is pretty hypothetical at the moment. There was no reason so far to have doubts on deterring capacity of NATO Article 21.

During peacetime my answer would be by increasing military spending and attracting more people to military careers and voluntary reserve. During wartime everything goes of course - it's still should be non-discriminatory though.

Firefighters defend against fire, doing a regular job for a wage, employed under circumstances based on consent.

We need to stop this ritualization of the work that the military does. It is, after all, just a type of work.

I would say that the "mental conditioning" and strict disciplinary system of the military is unique among lines of employment.

Even more reason that it shouldn't be mandatory.

If a country can't find enough young men and women willing to take up arms in its defence, it has already lost.

Who would you defend in not you children and wives?