Premise: i do not give a damn about gender equality and I see feminism as a plague. I’m a men’s rights advocate and I’m fully supportive of MGTOW philosophy. As such, I would like women of the modern age to face the flipside of the equality dream.

Nevertheless, the above does not stop me from being foremost a rationalist.

The draft for women turns out to be bad for men, deadly bad. And it is quite simple to understand simply putting aside the emotional drive.

Women are bad in combat roles and the army needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.

One year ago an article painted a clear picture of the effectiviness of women’s deployment in combat warfare. Women (especically in infantry) are not only ineffective; they also represent a burden which is detrimental to males’ performances.

rtr3018zYou know it, I know it, women know it. The army knows it.

Do women want to be deployed in the combat line? The uniform may look nice, the salary may help but the trenches, the minefields, the bodybags… they are simply too gross for the ladies.

Let’s face it. The army does not want women in combat roles and women feel the same. The logical conclusion is that the draft for men is not the same for women.

“Yeah, but how that turns to be bad for men?” you might wonder.

The answer is in the nature of the draft. The draft is put in place during peace times by the government to force people to engage in large conflicts, in confrontations with enemies of similar military capabilities. Such as a NATO vs China and Russia, for example. You do not need a draft to bomb Iraq.

During a (real) war a significant share of military personnel is involved in support roles. Guess who will end in support roles and who will end in the front line?

The more women are drafted the more men will be deployed on the frontline. Pretty simple, after all.

During peace times everyone is idealist; during war times everyone is pragmatic.

That’s the way I see it. The more real a women’s draft becomes the more inevitable a war appears.