I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything.
But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable.
Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.
The assault forces aren't men because they are "stronger" but because society shames men for not fighting. I've had frank discussions with women on this topic and it always comes down to "fuck that I don't want equal rights. I don't want to be drafted in a war" - direct quote from a ex. The shame that comes down on men from women during wartime is intense.
See the White Feather movement in the UK during WW1.
To be fair I've seen quite a few women fight in Ukraine but they are outnumbered by men something like 1:100. Even in Israel where women are drafted and have compulsory service they still are shielded from the real meat grinder operations.
The wrong here, it burns! Feminists fight to integrate the military (while developing an critique of militarism), powerful traditionalist men fight to keep them out. Feminists are winning and now the US military is ~18% women and growing. In sexist Ukraine and Russia, the percentages are much lower. So tell me again how women are too weak for combat?
It's not feminists calling for powerful men to send disposable poor men into the grinder. It's not feminists calling for men to "man up" and pretend they don't have emotional needs or fears. That's all on traditionalist men. Sexist men don't get to both enforce such traditional roles while decrying them as unjust.
>When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed.
Can you elaborate on this and what impact this artificial womb will have?
I'm not sure what you consider as outmoded, but considering the biology of men and women, it makes perfect sense to send the men off to sacrifice in war while women stay home.
Women can bear children: this is a valuable advantage on the homefront and a huge liability on the front lines. Women get raped in wars, there's no getting around it. Women can stay home to bear children and care for the small ones and foster hope for the future.
While it is plain that fathers are good for children and having them around is a benefit, if a man must go to war, then it is better than a woman going to war. A man can procreate a child with his wife before shipping out. A man is unlikely to be raped or bear children when captured on the front lines. A society that has lost a significant portion of its fighting-age men is more likely to recover than one which has lost many child-bearing women, or both.
Furthermore, if you want to build a cohesive fighting unit (or a department in business or education or industry or whatever), you build it entirely of one sex. It is more efficient that way (no expenses on women's bathrooms or other facilities) and there is less conflict and drama (troops gonna have sex and women gonna get pregnant, and then they're both sent home?)
These are inherent biological factors and they have nothing to do with human rules, they are God-given and unchanging. These factors have been true for millions of years, and they are the basis for human rules on why men fight and women stay home.
I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything.
But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable.
Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.