It does have a bearing because it is an expansion of the original theme of the article.... it's just not an expansion you're happy about reading. It's much easier to decry something as irrelevant because that allows the focus to stay on easy decisions like 'should we have more females in boardrooms' - to which the answer is yes. The fact most men are against female conscription is still anti-feminist if those men are pro-conscription of men. The moral choice is not obvious.

Nobody wants to be forced to go to war... there are 42,000 female VOLUNTEERS in the Ukrainian army and 1.6 million active/reseve men. The reason I'm bringing it up is it is literally the demonstration of schrodingers feminist.

If men are against the conscription of women but pro having conscription of men, they aren't taking a feminist position. Feminism is about equal treatment of both sexes with no distinction made between the two. Being a woman grants the privilege of not being forced to go to war and get shot at, meaning feminists either have to argue for men not being conscripted, or full conscription of everyone (like Israel or Norway).

The opposing position is taken by non-feminist men (who think women are too delicate to be in war) and schrodinger's feminists who aren't prepared to argue against the interests of women. If you are truly feminist then you'll argue for universal equality whether it is against the interests of men or women.

Schrodinger's feminist is selective about the argument he or she picks to champion. That's why I brought it up. That's why its relevant.