Craziest Ways People Dismiss The Male Draft?

Libitatu · 2026-01-11T22:50:26+00:00

Another popular one is to blame “Patriarchy”TM. So if you support us, it will magically go away.
Some try to make a gotcha. They assume you are a right/republican with strict gender roles and use “women are weaker on average so this is why. You think it yourself”.
Here in Russia it hust plain old be a manly man. If you didn’t serve - you are not a man.

P.S. Thank god I avoided this shit altogether.

cruxura · 2026-01-11T23:01:27+00:00

One way it gets dismissed often is by people saying "well, men start the wars, they should be the ones fighting.".

Karmaze · 2026-01-11T23:54:50+00:00

I'll give another example I see all the time. People talking about the social upheaval in South Korea without acknowledging and including the mandatory conscription as even potentially part of that.

Specialist_Load_9953 · 2026-01-12T00:52:00+00:00

I’ve posted similar to the below in other threads and I’d suggest that anyone moving forward that makes a post on selective service or the draft makes reference to red herring fallacies being unwelcome within their main original post. In fact please feel free to steal and copy/post as much or as little of the foregoing as you want, or to just use it as a guide.

I wish “the answer is nobody should be drafted” and the “avoid all wars” crowd, would stop with the sabotaging of any questions around the military draft with their attempts to derail the discourse with their red herring fallacies.

RED HERRING FALLACIES: This fallacy occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant or secondary subject to divert attention from the original topic of the argument.

1.NOBODY SHOULD BE DRAFTED

• ⁠The Original Topic: Whether the legal obligation for military conscription should be applied equally to men and women. • ⁠The Diversion: The general morality or existence of the draft itself (suggesting nobody should be drafted). • ⁠The Problem, Irrelevance: While the existence of the draft is a related topic, it's not the same as the question of gender equality within the current system. By shifting the focus, the person avoids addressing the core issue of equal responsibility or discrimination in the existing male-only draft. This move is a form of fallacy of relevance, as the new point, though potentially valid in another context, is not relevant to the specific question at hand.

2.AVOID ALL WARS

• ⁠The Original Topic: The original debate centers on gender equality in the specific context of existing draft laws and whether women should have the same obligation as men (i.e., whether the draft system itself should be gender-neutral). • ⁠The Diversion: Responding with "the answer is no war" shifts the discussion from the practical and legal question of who should be subject to a draft (assuming a draft is necessary or exists) to the entirely separate, idealistic, and much larger issue of abolishing all war. • ⁠The Problem, Irrelevance: While many people are generally opposed to war or conscription in principle, that stance does not address the specific question of gender equality within the current or hypothetical draft system. The existence of war is a given premise of the draft discussion, and proposing an end to all war as a solution to the draft question is a misdirection. This move is a form of fallacy of relevance, as the new point, though potentially valid in another context, is not relevant to the specific question at hand.

Gabriel25Th · 2026-01-11T23:57:58+00:00

Solution to the Declining Birth Rate in Mexico

In response to the declining birth rate in Mexico, a “mandatory reproductive social service” could be implemented exclusively for women. This program would include training in motherhood and caregiving, as well as the active promotion of procreation. It would be justified under the banners of “values education,” “social responsibility,” and “demographic sustainability.”

Without forcing women to have children, the program would nevertheless require them to invest their time and energy in attending the service. There would be no fines for non-attendance; however, completion of the service would be a necessary requirement to access certain public sector jobs and to carry out specific government procedures.

AfghanistanIsTaliban · 2026-01-12T10:40:46+00:00

“I will never say that progress is being made. If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that's below, that the blow made. And they haven't even begun to pull the knife out, much less pull, heal the wound... They won't even admit the knife is there.”

Malcolm X

Male expendability isn’t solved by silently removing policies that are caused by it, it is by challenging rules, laws, traditions, and norms (both new and old) which maintain it. The great hypocrisy of feminism is that it maintains that there are subtle forms of male dominance enforced by social norms - such as makeup or sex work - while rejecting the gendered impact of conscription and many overt anti-male systems

Conscription was so horrible to the young men of Syria that it was almost immediately abolished after the fall of Al-Assad. It massively worsened the migrant crisis, turned the youth against each other, and created an environment of misery and chaos in civil society. Deserters and mutineers got the dissident treatment. It was one of many loyalty tests

Just imagine conscription being seen as a tool of oppression by Syrian revolutionaries but feminists say that it isn’t so bad and that it’s just another gender role! Crazy

“Yeah men! Stop war!” goes back to complaining about emotional labor etc etc Stopping war was never really #1 on their priority list, they just like telling YOU in particular to “stop war”

apokrif1 · 2026-01-11T22:59:40+00:00

Conscripts might apply to refugee status in another country, as members of a particular social group and victims of discriminatory (genderist) law.

Different-Product-91 · 2026-01-12T07:30:00+00:00

"Women can give birth." This is among the most lunatic and dumbest ones. What do conscription and pregnancy have in common? The obvious answer is: nothing.

Neveah_Hope_Dreams · 2026-01-12T19:51:53+00:00

Okay, I’m a little bit ashamed in that I would usually say “I would rather war to stop altogether” not because I want to dismiss the subject but because I am very passionately anti-war. However I then become realistic knowing that sadly they may never be a time where war will end all over the world and the army will always be needed for various things. Then I say that the draft should be equal in accepting men and women. It should not target only men. But on the subject of this post, the craziest dismissal I see about the male draft is when Leftist feminists all of the sudden become conservative. They will say shit like “Well, women need to be at home to reproduce and take care of the children. If women are sent to war then the human race would die out because women need to reproduce…” blah blah blah. They all of a sudden start talking like a sexist conservative.

No-Impact4970 · 2026-01-12T20:24:19+00:00

It wasn’t to avoid the issue of the male draft, but I got banned from a leftist discord server after being baited into taking the stance that conscription is sometimes necessary, like in WW2

ChimpPimp20 · 2026-01-13T01:43:15+00:00

Here's one sort of dismissal that seems really popular: “Well, we need to stop war altogether.”

Imagine your house gets robbed, and when you tell people what happened, they do nothing except say, “I think we should really focus on ending all crime.” That's called avoiding the subject. You’d immediately recognize that you’re being dismissed.

They hate "alllivesmatter" until the convo is on men.

They'll also put up the Ukrainian flag in their bio and somehow don't mention the men who are forced to stay and fight. Look it up and you'll find clips of civilians saying that there aren't many young men left in their villages.

AutoModerator · 2026-01-11T17:13:00+00:00

Thank you for posting to r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. All new posts are held for manual review and may take up to 48 hours to be approved. Please don’t message the moderators, we’ll make sure to review your submission as soon as possible. If this is your first post, be sure to review our rules to ensure it meets our criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

No-Credit7944 · 2026-01-22T16:14:32+00:00

"Women can have children so in case a large part of the population dies they are important for rebuilding". It frustrates me because I'm not really sure how to debunk it. I mean, people probably wouldn't support forcing women to get pregnant if there were too few people. Not all women even want to have children. And why should I honestly even care about my country being rebuilt fast? This still shouldn't compromise human rights

Gabriel25Th · 2026-01-25T19:27:22+00:00

Any surgical procedure carries risks, and although the incidence of complications in the case of vasectomy is not particularly high, the risk does exist and should not be dismissed as trivial:

Post-vasectomy pain syndrome. The estimated incidence of this condition is around 7 out of every 100 vasectomized men. It can be debilitating, presenting as constant pain or pain during physical activity or ejaculation. The pain persists for months or even years.

Fluid accumulation in the testicles, which can cause a dull ache that worsens during ejaculation.

Inflammation caused by sperm leakage, known as a sperm granuloma.

The issue is not only that those who advocate for mandatory vasectomy downplay or ignore these potential complications, but also that they see no problem with surgically intervening in a person’s genitals against their will. This entails not only potential physical harm, but also significant emotional damage. Many men who have undergone vasectomy report that once the anesthesia wears off, the pain can be considerable. This is without even mentioning males on the autism spectrum, for whom such an experience can be particularly traumatic. It is deeply hypocritical to demand that men “sacrifice themselves for the common good,” while simultaneously treating any proposal that would require a comparable sacrifice from women as unacceptable. For example:

Solution to the declining birth rate in countries facing population aging

In response to declining birth rates, a “mandatory reproductive social service” exclusively for women could be implemented. This program would include training in motherhood and caregiving, as well as the active promotion of procreation. It would be justified under banners such as “values education,” “social responsibility,” and “demographic sustainability.” Without directly forcing women to have children, the program would nonetheless require them to invest time and energy in attending the service. There would be no fines for non-attendance; however, completion of the program would be a prerequisite for accessing certain public sector jobs or carrying out specific administrative procedures.

It is worth noting how this isn't even as appalling as the proposal for mandatory vasectomy, but it would still generate far greater outrage.

Comments