Germany suspends military approval for long stays abroad for men under 45

I guess we're living in two different areas of Europe. And regarding the last point:

> And the EU regime plans what? To send European military age men to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests while their homes and way of living are under attack.

First of all, there is no "EU regime", only countries threatened by Russia daily, which decided they need to increase their defence spending to deter Russia. Europe collectively decided NOT to send people "to die in a faraway foreign country fighting for foreign interests" in spite of Trump's pressure to do so.

I cannot understand how German men can be expected to fight while women are exempt. It's pure sexism against men and also very insulting to women.

I'm opposed to conscription in general, but I live in Sweden with gender-neutral conscription laws, and I would do my best to defend my country if it became necessary. If I were a man in an alternate version of Sweden with male-only conscription, I would feel so disrespected and devalued by the state that I couldn't imagine myself defending it, so I would either join a non-state-affiliated resistance group or flee the country.

If I lived in Germany right now (even as a woman, but especially as a man), I would seriously consider emigrating to a more egalitarian country as soon as possible.

Don't be ridiculous. You really don't see a difference between someone choosing to see a doctor for their own benefit and the state forcing someone to be subjected to an examination for the state's benefit?

Nobody should accept gender discrimination or being touched without consent.

Poland are in Nato, I'd expect europe wide deployment on an invasion. Itll definitely be volunteer forces at first, but I wouldn't hold my breath on conscripted forces never being deployed if it goes into a quagmire like ukraine.

At the risk of feeding this troll, I'll go for it here.

Men and women are essentially different in real biological ways, as well as emotional and socialization.

For millennia, women and children have been held innocent and protected. This is why Christian societies don't throw them on the frontlines as cannon fodder, but rather, the men go in front and the men fight, as expendables, while the woman and children can be protected far behind the front lines of any conflict.

Women can bear children, feed their infants, and care for families even while men are occupied or absent. Women are much more capable of restarting a civilization even when the men are decimated. It is a very logical and pragmatic decision to protect women and children from warfare and violence.

Conversely, armies of female warriors have enjoyed legendary status as especially fierce and undefeated. How many of us have enjoyed "Wonder Woman", "Calafia", Amazons, and the rest?

Furthermore, a soldier may be victimized by rape. SA of a male has different consequences than SA of a mature woman. You can imagine that a woman who becomes pregnant faces difficult decisions for the rest of her life. Again, the expendable nature of men makes us less susceptible to SA and ransom plots and other manipulation by the enemy.

So the trouble today, is that women are "empowered by equality" and demand every right and privilege that is due to men, and that extends to dirty horrible jobs, and fighting in combat. Women who are empowered by equality are also going to be subjected to responsibilities and duties that they didn't have before. Societies are simply coming up with no other choice but to put women in combat, because the women are doing every other job and it seems absurd to hold back.

Naturally, putting women in harm's way, and even conscripting them, eventually seems necessary if the adversary is doing it too. I am not sure that our Islamic or East Asian adversaries are doing this, but perhaps Westerners believe that we can thus gain the upper hand. I propose that it will disadvantage and disgrace us instead.