I am sorry my joke appears to have failed. I was not implying you were an llm. I was implying that my opinion was obvious. If it isn't, that would be very helpful feedback though.
Considering where we are, I can take a guess what you meant, but also think of a least three ways that someone can take issue with that line, but that boil mostly down to, that it was only pretense and not the reason at all.
Refusing shelter to people who flee the war based on their sex (gender?) and nationality is no trolling. It's both sexist and nazist - two things the EU elites are so desperately trying to root out from their societies.
I have no idea how dire the situation in Ukraine is currently, but can we first acknowledge human nature and the necessities of defending your country against an aggressor before invoking some words that have lost most of their meaning by now?
As a father, brother, son and coward who didn't serve, I'd rather be with my loved ones than in the trenches. But having them, or any women, drafted in my place is also out of the question.
Also, are you disregarding the reality that we life in nations (that can have the misfortune of having evil demon lords as neighbors) and that man and woman are not totally interchangeable?
What is your suggestion then? Speaking as a leader of a country at war or an ally of that country.
My suggestion is not to exclude men from the temporary protection scheme. They're as much of humans as women are and they too want to live their lives peacefully rather than fight for God knows what and being forced to die in the meat grinder like cattle. At least give that to people who managed to escape the Ukrainian concentration camp.
Or, if you decide that men have duties that women don't, let's get back to the patriarchy and give the men the privileges they fight for (or have to fight for in case of a war).
Ok. You loose the war, your country gets occupied and your population suffers. And you are probably a special guest of the maniac next door. Good job.
Or that happened to your ally. Also good job.
Most people decided millennia ago that man and woman have different duties in war times. Both important. Am I wrong?
Why is it, that you have to bring up all these unrelated topics like patriarchy, privileges and nazism? Sounds familiar. Do you have a checklist? Can I see it?
Also:
>> ...fight for God knows what...
People tend to have an attachment to the place where they live or have been born or with the people they live with.
I do, at least somewhat. What about you?
EDIT: In my country (one of the offending), `women cannot under any circumstance be required (conscripted) to "serve with a weapon"`
That is a privilege, no?
So, totally in line with policy and even in our "constitution".
As i said, women have different responsibilities in wartime. not less. different.
You cannot achieve perfect equality if two things aren't perfectly equal. We try, we really do. But there will always be something left. And that is fine.
Or do you suggest to conscript women and send them to the front instead? just to satisfy equality?
I just like it when governments try to be consistent with their policies. Equal rights? That's great, but then why men all of a sudden have more duties? If they do, they should have more privileges then. That's consistent and honest.
It is (mostly) consistent. Some of the northern countries actually started conscripting women in the last decade, but otherwise it is voluntary for women...
Also war is relatively rare these days and men don't have to get the babies. So, that's that, with the duties and privileges.
I could speak, but...
reply