fivetomidnight

Women aren't forced to have the babies either.

That would be a problem. But given the right circumstances, it happens anyway. (the babies, not the forcing)

You're delusional.

That or reading too much history. You are right. It used to be like that, though.

It's also stupid to argue these topics when you have no good clue about what it actually means to be at war. Shouldn't do that again.

while being a dictatorship doesnt change much

After having a talk with a friend, I agree on this one. Didn't think far enough. Forced military service makes for poor soldiers, especially when you drag them back from an "allied" country. Your governments standing suffers for next to no gain.

Guess what, their decisions weren't limited by war times. ...

Agreed, but the topic is war times.

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Can't rule that out, or just very different perspective. That's the reason for the many dumb questions. Please bear with me.

This division of duties IS called...

something... Not defending it, just can't see where the "patriarchal system" applies here. If that were relevant in any way, why would we men go to shot each other in the face? Need help here.

Is that the reason they fled the country

A part of them might have fled to avoid the conscription, agreed. Otherwise it was the massive invasion... My grandparents fled the red army out of Bohemia as well. Didn't change the attachment or fondness towards their old home. Hard to return when someone else live in your home.

That's inequality by definition.

Agreed.

I don't see women being forced out back to Ukraine to their responsibilities, though. Do you?

Explained that point pretty well, i think. And we'll remind them about that if they don't lose the war.

I suggest consistency

It is consistent. What the government wants/says and what is lived is not the same. Also, I never said, I agree with the EU decision. It's stupid and they, again, do their own thing. The decision will probably cost the respective governments a lot of standing with our and the Ukrainian population.

I'm arguing gender equality is the minor issue on that whole thing. It's as you said, we (EU) are no allies. We do the least amount of effort so that ukraine doesn't lose the war, but aren't counted as part of the war. It's shameful.

I guess, we are afraid, if it escalates outside of ukraine, we can't even muster a defense and the risk of nuclear retaliation.

Want to thank you for your time and apologize. I learned a bit the last days. but have the tendency of getting an allergy when people appear to laser-focus on a topic and need to have it applied everywhere and disregard everything else. Have to work on my biases and patience, I guess...

Yeah, i was not sure.

Considering where we are, I can take a guess what you meant, but also think of a least three ways that someone can take issue with that line, but that boil mostly down to, that it was only pretense and not the reason at all.

So, no, it's not really obvious.

Haha, you got me, the recipe for glue Pizza is...

But for real, that was kinda rude. How did you get that impression?

If you don't care, go away?

It is (mostly) consistent. Some of the northern countries actually started conscripting women in the last decade, but otherwise it is voluntary for women...

Also war is relatively rare these days and men don't have to get the babies. So, that's that, with the duties and privileges.

Ok. You loose the war, your country gets occupied and your population suffers. And you are probably a special guest of the maniac next door. Good job.

Or that happened to your ally. Also good job.

Most people decided millennia ago that man and woman have different duties in war times. Both important. Am I wrong?

Why is it, that you have to bring up all these unrelated topics like patriarchy, privileges and nazism? Sounds familiar. Do you have a checklist? Can I see it?

Also:

> ...fight for God knows what...

People tend to have an attachment to the place where they live or have been born or with the people they live with. I do, at least somewhat. What about you?

EDIT: In my country (one of the offending), `women cannot under any circumstance be required (conscripted) to "serve with a weapon"`

That is a privilege, no?

So, totally in line with policy and even in our "constitution".

As i said, women have different responsibilities in wartime. not less. different.

You cannot achieve perfect equality if two things aren't perfectly equal. We try, we really do. But there will always be something left. And that is fine.

Or do you suggest to conscript women and send them to the front instead? just to satisfy equality?

I have no idea how dire the situation in Ukraine is currently, but can we first acknowledge human nature and the necessities of defending your country against an aggressor before invoking some words that have lost most of their meaning by now?

As a father, brother, son and coward who didn't serve, I'd rather be with my loved ones than in the trenches. But having them, or any women, drafted in my place is also out of the question.

Also, are you disregarding the reality that we life in nations (that can have the misfortune of having evil demon lords as neighbors) and that man and woman are not totally interchangeable?

What is your suggestion then? Speaking as a leader of a country at war or an ally of that country.

No, please, go on...

I seriously can't tell anymore if that is trolling.

I think it's natural. We were literally doing that none stop during 1500's , 1400's ,1300's, just imagine the ancient silk-road.

That's not quite true. Just looking over my families ancestry data. There are outliers, but most died in a couple kilometer radius where they were born. Even more further in the past. At least until the 1650s when it's hard to find data. Before the 30 year war, both documentation gets rarer and poeple apparently didn't have lastnames as they did today. It wasn't neccessary. ...Because they moved so little...

Sure, silk road. But how many people moved along a bigger part of it?

Fair, vendor lock-in doesn't matter when it's a notepad.

But that's still 3 X280s if all you need an overpowered notepad. It's my daily driver for exactly that use case, so no disparage there.

And it's still overpowered for that. But it's so tiny...

Also don't buy new if it's not for (critical) business, I want to add.

You could get 4 Lenovo X280 if you just need an overpowered notepad.

Free but not Open Source? Did I miss that?

Looks like you found the ad/sponsor block in the article.

I see it more like a question than a rule.

"The service is free. Am I the product?"

That is a valid thing to ask. Even with FOSS sometimes.

Some FOSS projects are backed by companies, then yes, plausible to ask.

Otherwise, I would answer with a clear no.

(Projects can still collect telemetry and other data and sell that, though the sell part should be very rare, imo...)

Edit: Was that a bad faith argument or a honest question?

Sometimes I can't tell, maybe because of old or ESL...

I get what you mean, but I might have miscommunicated a bit.

Clarification: "are set to" means by the parent. "Accounts and Applications to services that provide countent" like media content providing apps like discord, netflix, etc. that ARE able and/or bound to rate their content.

Package Manager and Software Installation in general are usually locked behind root/admin passwords anyway. Especially on kids' devices their user should be non-admin, no?

So, when any piece of software is installed, it is by choice of the parent.

That's not unreasonable then?

No. This is not the way.

give parents the ABILITY to advertise the users age to browsers, apps and everything in between.

Accounts and Applications to services that provide countent are set to a country-specific age rating restrictions (PG, 12+, 18+, whatever). That's it.

None of the things you mentioned have any point to concern themself with the age or age-bracket of the user in front of the device. This can and will be abused. This is very obvious. Think about it.