Why are women so eager to see men die in wars?

>>81481153 (OP)
Because if Western powers fall, women lose their power. The West is fighting against a patriarchal society.

>>81481153 (OP)
Because Western women hate their men more deeply than any other kind of woman and them running off in Ukraine is proof of this

>>81481160
Okay, but if their men die off then who will maintain their gynocracy? Doesn't really make sense from a Machiavellian perspective either.

i think men are like Pokemon, to (a subset of) women. we're proxies who fight their battles.

>Ukraine's former foreign minister has starkly warned that British mothers must accept their sons have to die defending Europe, otherwise there is no Nato.
This is a throwaway comment from a dumbfuck ESL nobody, who cares

>>81481181
A large majority of Western women are dumb as fuck and have everything handed to them in life with minimal struggle. Do you think they have the capability to think that far ahead?

>>81481181
just create more men? only 40% of men throughout history have bred. even if the women have to drop their standards in some way, they can still get pregnant. men will still be disposable. would take a lower fertility rate + generations for this to matter.

>>81481209
>Do you think they have the capability to think that far ahead?
No. That's what I'm saying. I just think they enjoy male suffering and death and there's no real strategic thought behind this mindset.

>>81481217
Into the jeet pit they go

>>81481213
>just create more men?
But they don't. Can you imagine a future in which Ukrainian women repopulated Ukraine when their pre-war birth rates were worse than that of fucking south korea? They are fresh out of disposable males to throw at their problems.
>>81481224
They will, but I'm still never going to understand the reason as to why they have to be like this. It just feels right to them, I guess.

Female journalists are more destructive to society than OF whores

>>81481239
>They are fresh out of disposable males to throw at their problems.
birth rates are declining across the board, at least in developed countries. not sure why.
even in short-term thinking, i wonder if a war would push women to have kids ASAP.

>>81481239
They're selfish and vain and think they're owed the world because their parents raised them as princesses and treated their sons like dogs. Also social media brainwashing.

>>81481153 (OP)
Dont read anything about the Paraguay war if you don't want to get depressed

>>81481259
If the imminent threat of ethnic replacement didn't do it, why would a war change anything? You have to understand that since the dawn of human civilization, reproduction was mostly male driven. Women, if left to their own devices very often opt not have children and it's not some great mystery either, it's just the path of least resistance. They're like evolutionary bystanders to whom things just kinda happen. If men don't impregnate women, they don't get pregnant. I know that sounds like duh, but think about it.

>>81481293
I knew about that, they lost like two thirds of their population and almost all men. Is there any written record of female behavior before and during that conflict?

>>81481294
i'm in my 30s and have female friends (i just do.)
there has been a huge shift in them suddenly wanting to have kids, i don't know how much that is instinct, what's societal pressure, any sort of "my time is running out" response.

in a war? could push women, if they were safe as civilians? having less sex, possibly their LAST chance to ever have a kid with their partner, guarantees he'll stick around if/when he gets back? governments could incentivize it, to keep the population going? we have effective birth control now, the Western world is generally less religious (or at least more selective with their beliefs)... but there's both an instinctive and a pragmatic need you could appeal to, here.

>>81481199
not to mention
>Dmytro Kuleba issued the warning
>He spoke to Metro exclusively
>He

the quote is an actual quote. it's not abstract/for effect.

>>81481340
What you're saying is full of ifs and mays with your personal take sprinkled in. A lot of women get an urge around 30 but they still don't reproduce. The birth rates speak for themselves and the childless age brackets that the federal government pointed out speak even louder. They are not going to have any kids, period.

You want to hear my anecdotal evidence as well? I come from a lower middle class background and I had 39 female peers in high school. Do you know how many of them have kids(one kid actually) by the age of 35? Three. They all went to big city business schools and most of them are not even in relationships. Some made real money, some are just wagecucking, but barely any of them have a child. Why is that? Purely socio economic reasons? They can't afford it with the piles of cash they're sitting on? Come on.

They can beat Russia in Ukraine...in a way it's no different than the cold war, somehow we're exempt.

>>81481340
>there has been a huge shift in them suddenly wanting to have kids
Who cares? Most young men are struggling financially, a good portion never developed socially because they missed out on relationships with women. These women want something that just doesn't exist. So they can want all day long. Just like the left over women in China want.

>>81481469
yeah it's anecdotal, but it feels comparative (dialectical, even) because these weren't women who were desperate to have kids ASAP: it turned on a dime. i have no personal experience of being a woman.
my only other point of comparison is World War II, i suppose. but obviously the world has changed a bit since then. overall, i think large groups of humans are pretty good at surviving: even war/disease doesn't mean we "run out of" men.

(your peers, i have no clue. cultural shift in attitudes? women working as much as men?)

>>81481506
>your peers, i have no clue.
Well, I do. I have a clue. They just don't feel like it. Ever considered that possibility?

>>81481514
sure, but do you think they have 'replaced' the desire to have kids, with those jobs/lifestyles? or did they just not have the desire, in the first place?
not exactly hardcore misogyny to say 'female homo sapiens wants to have kids'.

>>81481547
>or did they just not have the desire, in the first place?
This is where we have to detach from science and statistics because there are no definitive answers. There may be various factors, but in MY opinion, by default, women like everyone else will choose the path of least resistance. They have their mammal instincts but they also have enough cognitive function to measure the pros and cons.

A child is a burden, pregnancy is a burden. Not having kids is the easier choice. Almost every living being will be in tune with the energy minimum principle and do the things that are the most convenient for them, especially in the short term.

>>81481153 (OP)
women feel power less so they want to cause men to die and fuck their enemies
the solution is to build a house in hawaii and marry an eighteen year old dance student (female)

>>81481322
Most of them stayed unlike Western women that flee at the first sign of trouble. They have a pathological hate for their men

>>81481153 (OP)
Because it turns them on. No joke. It gives them pussy tingles. Women enjoy watching violence.

>>81481199
>We've exhausted our supply of men
>Now give us your children and throw them into the meat grinder

>>81481153 (OP)
Remember that you have a moral duty to just start disposing of draft officers

>>81481181
>implying women can think abstractly
heh

>>81483128
That's what I'm saying. It's not only unwarranted sadism, but also irrational.

>>81483147
Most women are just NPCs mate, literally cannot see the bigger picture of anything. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic considering they're crashing the West into the ground with no survivors.

How bout they send the fuckin sand niggers instead?