Timeline for At what technological level can a mixed-gender military not be at a disadvantage to an all-male one?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2023 at 18:54 | comment | added | Dewi Morgan | @Questor if it helps, you can mentally replace the term "everyone" in item #3 with "everyone who applies", "everyone eligible", "everyone who's name begins with A", or whatever you like. The point here is not "100% of the population serves" (obviously: children and the disabled exist, etc), but that it's not a "zero sum game" where if one person serves, another person cannot, as in #1, 2 & 3. Feel free to suggest alternative phrasing if you feel this was unclear. But if you're explicitly capping it at "10% of the population" then that is indeed zero sum, and you're talking about #1, 2 or 3 | |
| Feb 28, 2023 at 0:41 | comment | added | Questor | @DewiMorgan... 3 is wrong. It assumes that 100% or close to 100% of your eligible people will be soldiers. historically less then 10% of the entire population were soldiers. (as historically you need massive amouunts of farmers to feed everyone). in that case you can field just as many men, as you could field men/women... Only difference is if the society is a steppe tribe. | |
| Feb 27, 2023 at 1:36 | comment | added | Dewi Morgan | @AncientGiantPottedPlant That sounds like #3 to me: zero sum is where female participants may push out male ones from a limited pool of positions. "Total war with conscription" implies taking as many people as you can get, with no limit to the number of positions filled. | |
| Feb 26, 2023 at 23:27 | comment | added | user86462 | Wouldn't total war with conscription be more or less #2? | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 19:51 | history | answered | Dewi Morgan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |