>>82242810
>Show me female equivalent of the pic
The British feminist movement was divided, with some supporting the white feather movement as a way to prove their patriotism, and others opposing it

In the US, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the largest feminist organization there, and in 1980, in response to proposals to bring back the draft, they announced opposition to the draft (as well as war in general) while also stating opposition to excluding women from the draft if one was enacted (https://feminist.org/resources/feminist-chronicles/part-iii-the-early-documents/women-and-the-military/#iii-draft). This has often been the stance of feminists. One can look back earlier to feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who responded to charges that women shouldn't vote if they won't fight by arguing against fighting and war in general.
>That is true redpill. If you alone on on inhabited island you don't need rights. You can do whatever you want. Rights only exist when applied to others. Rights are barrier between you desires and desires of others. Getting more for you is moving that barrier at expense of others.
People can still work together to build and work for the common-wealth of all, rather than having a zero-sum, all against all approach. This is basic economics. When it comes to more rights-based approaches, in a sense one can present things as zero-sum in the idea that they restrict the ability for some people to control others and dominate them. But I don't want to control or dominate women. When it comes to romance, I fucking hate the idea that love and romance need to involve control and domination. I just want equality, and actual love. The anti-feminists and traditionalists can't give me that, they can only give privilege, power, and control, which isnt very loving