[RD] Feminism

[aelf]

Honestly, if only women were drafted I bet you'd still say sexism against women. But whatever.

If only women were drafted because men were seen as the weaker sex, sure.

Hey aelf. This is just your own conjecture from a very narrow emotional perspective, FYI.

Nope. It's a common historical narrative that's widely known.

 

[Honor]

Nope. It's a common historical narrative that's widely known.

It is not just that they were weak, but also that they were loved. Saying women were not drafted solely because they were considered to be the weaker sex resonates with people in your world in an upside down manner that does not reflect the truth.

 

[aelf]

"also that they were loved" - that does not negate the commonly-held notion that they were the weaker sex, which is something you are oddly (or willfully) ignorant of.

 

[Honor]

"also that they were loved" - that does not negate the commonly-held notion that they were the weaker sex, which is something you are oddly (or willfully) ignorant of.

To quote myself: "It is not just that they were weak, but also that they were loved."

I am not ignorant of the fact that women are physically weaker than men. I was not addressing the words you wrote down, but their contemporary American meaning - specifically how devoid of the consideration of love the notion you are defending is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am lucky enough that I don't personally know anyone murdered. Definitely not anyone close to me. But I'm sure there's an abundance of people you could talk to.

I knew a few people who were murdered, and a relative was killed by a cop who was chasing a speeder. I will never forget the day my cousin's sister came to our place to tell us about it. One moment she was going about her life, minding her own business, and then along came a cop, not exercising proper diligence in making sure that civilians wouldn't be endangered by his actions.

One of the other people was someone I'd worked with in the theatre - really nice guy who was in the cast of Jesus Christ Superstar. He moved to Calgary not long after that, and a year or two later I read in the paper that he'd been murdered. The article didn't say who did it or why.

Another was one of the best city council aldermen we ever had. He was retired when he was killed... by his stepson, over money.

Too much information.

Seriously, even though you didn't name names, there's such a thing as too much information.

Sounds like you don't know me. I am MUCH more hostile towards my fellow men than I am to women. I've given death threats before, including people on this very forum. Guess what? They were men. I have done and contemplate doing truly despicable things to my fellow men that I wouldn't for a fraction of a second think about doing to a woman. If you think I have a double standard against women, you clearly don't know me.

Clearly the mods here are more forgiving than I am. I noticed the death threat post. On any of the forums I run, it would be a permaban. Instantly, and forever, not a chance in hell of an appeal.

Sure, but whoever said that wasn't me. Don't lump me in with him.

You'll have noticed that I didn't do that, right?

Meh. In this case the best you can say is 'you don't know just because you haven't been raped' rather than ' you don't know just because you're a man'. Because 1) it's possible for a man to get raped (especially in jail) and 2) the majority of women will not get raped, thank God. Even then, one individual story of one individual rape survivor doesn't trump every other story in the world.

Re-read the paragraph you quoted. The word "rape" does not appear in it.

As stated before, I don't actually know what your background is.

Then re-read my earlier posts in this thread. I give a condensed version.

Here's a tip: Sometimes it really is useful to know something about the person with whom you're arguing. It can save a lot of misunderstandings and wrong assumptions.

In that case Plotinus would agree with me. But let's let him speak for himself. We don't need a catsplainer, do we?

A "catsplainer" would be a cat explaining dogs to dogs, or birds to birds, or even humans to humans (the latter is a common occurrence on the Cheezburger site). Your use of the term (a first, btw) makes no sense in the context of this thread.

The fact is that my cat does not have the slightest interest in this thread. The only thing that is on her mind right now is that she would like some milk, and will state that very emphatically the moment I get up from the computer.

Nah. A solid majority of the deaths are male, even among civilians. edit: This is not even including that on the winning side, the civilian casualties will be close to 0.

Really. The winning side of any war has zero (or close to zero) civilian casualties. Maybe you should tell that to all the civilians from the winning sides in WWI, WWII, and every other war, that they're really not dead, because civilians don't die.

 

[Akka]

It is not just that they were weak, but also that they were loved. Saying women were not drafted solely because they were considered to be the weaker sex resonates with people in your world in an upside down manner that does not reflect the truth.

Sorry, but I doubt love had anything to do with it. It certainly could motivate the soldiers in national drafts ("defend your wives and children !"), but for the most part I'd more than bet it was simply ingrained habits of "men fights, women have babies" (which obviously would stem from the stark biological differences). As you pointed, women love men just as men love women, so it's not like the rationale would have been different for a mixed-sex army.

 

[caketastydelish]

I knew a few people who were murdered, and a relative was killed by a cop who was chasing a speeder. I will never forget the day my cousin's sister came to our place to tell us about it. One moment she was going about her life, minding her own business, and then along came a cop, not exercising proper diligence in making sure that civilians wouldn't be endangered by his actions.

One of the other people was someone I'd worked with in the theatre - really nice guy who was in the cast of Jesus Christ Superstar. He moved to Calgary not long after that, and a year or two later I read in the paper that he'd been murdered. The article didn't say who did it or why.



Another was one of the best city council aldermen we ever had. He was retired when he was killed... by his stepson, over money.

Thank you for sharing this.

Seriously, even though you didn't name names, there's such a thing as too much information.

How come your my stories are considered too much information and not yours?

Clearly the mods here are more forgiving than I am. I noticed the death threat post. On any of the forums I run, it would be a permaban. Instantly, and forever, not a chance in hell of an appeal.

And I probably deserved it and was honestly expecting it.

Here's a tip: Sometimes it really is useful to know something about the person with whom you're arguing. It can save a lot of misunderstandings and wrong assumptions.

Fair enough.

A "catsplainer" would be a cat explaining dogs to dogs, or birds to birds, or even humans to humans (the latter is a common occurrence on the Cheezburger site). Your use of the term (a first, btw) makes no sense in the context of this thread.

The fact is that my cat does not have the slightest interest in this thread. The only thing that is on her mind right now is that she would like some milk, and will state that very emphatically the moment I get up from the computer.

the 'catpslain' was a joke. I apologize if I didn't make that obvious.

Really. The winning side of any war has zero (or close to zero) civilian casualties. Maybe you should tell that to all the civilians from the winning sides in WWI, WWII, and every other war, that they're really not dead, because civilians don't die.

With this, you bring a good point, but that's an unusual situation. WW2 was one of the only massive scaled wars in modern times within the countries of Europe. This allowed the losing side (Germany) to bomb civilians in Britain (winning side) even though they were in no position to launch a full-scale invasion. The situation in WW2 is an anomaly in that regard, compared to all the other wars in human history. The other wars either didn't have the technology for an airplane bomber hit and run, or was so heavily sided by one side that only the winning side was in a position to inflict damage (like America against Iraq).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thank you for sharing this.

You're welcome. It's been nearly 45 years since my cousin was killed. She was a young woman at the time, only 20 years old.

How come your my stories are considered too much information and not yours?

Mine are not sexually explicit.

And I probably deserved it and was honestly expecting it.

I'm glad you realize this, and hope you won't do it again.

 

[Honor]

Sorry, but I doubt love had anything to do with it. It certainly could motivate the soldiers in national drafts ("defend your wives and children !"), but I'd bet it was simply ingrained habits of "men fights, women have babies" (which obviously would stem from the stark biological differences). As you pointed, women love men just as men love women, so it's not like the rationale would have been different for a mixed-sex army.

I understand what you are saying and agree with it, so long as love can be assumed/taken for granted. Unfortunately, it no longer can, which pervasively turns the issue into a discussion of sexism.

 

[Lexicus]

Hey aelf. This is just your own conjecture from a very narrow emotional perspective, FYI.

There is nothing conjectural about this.

 

[civver_764]

Sexism is not simply a matter of who is 'worse off'. Only the extremely ignorant would argue that the draft is a historical example of sexism against men instead of sexism against women, even if being drafted is indeed worse (at least in the contemporary view) than not being drafted.

You can label it as "sexism against women" if you want, but what's the point of language like that if this is something that disadvantages men? You're completely missing the point and trying desperately to paint women as the victims because otherwise it contradicts your narrative. Take off your ideological blinders for a second.

 

[warpus]

Not that it shouldn't be done at all, just that there seems a valid reason for it not being a number one priority.

While I agree trying to prevent suicide might not be everyone's #1 priority (I mean we have AIDS, cancer, slavery, sex trafficking, and so on) I find it odd that that's your first thought when someone tries to prevent suicide. Should have been "Way to go! Preventing suicides is a good idea, let's do it!"

 

[aelf]

To quote myself: "It is not just that they were weak, but also that they were loved."

I am not ignorant of the fact that women are physically weaker than men. I was not addressing the words you wrote down, but their contemporary American meaning - specifically how devoid of the consideration of love the notion you are defending is.

So I see I was not wrong in my assessment and this is indeed how you operate.

That women were also loved by their male counterparts does not take away from the existence of sexism and sexist ideas. It's tangential to the point, just like the true origin of patriarchy is only tangential to the question of whether it exists. If you can't make a distinction between the threads of different (if somewhat related) issues and arguments, then I say there will seldom be any reason to attempt a discussion with you.

You can label it as "sexism against women" if you want, but what's the point of language like that if this is something that disadvantages men? You're completely missing the point and trying desperately to paint women as the victims because otherwise it contradicts your narrative. Take off your ideological blinders for a second.

Why would I be desperate to do anything? Given your background, maybe it is you who are desperate to paint yourself as a victim? That would make much more sense.

It's merely a fact that sexism against women creates victims both female and male, as others have pointed out before. But just because there are victims from both genders doesn't mean the sexism isn't towards women. A subset of women might even benefit, but it's still sexism towards women - the object of the discrimination is still the object. If I were to institute a draft for people with IQ of 100 and above because only they are considered competent enough to fight, it would be discrimination towards people with IQ of below 100, even if they may stand to lose less than their 'smarter' compatriots.

 

[Ryika]

While I agree trying to prevent suicide might not be everyone's #1 priority (I mean we have AIDS, cancer, slavery, sex trafficking, and so on) I find it odd that that's your first thought when someone tries to prevent suicide. Should have been "Way to go! Preventing suicides is a good idea, let's do it!"

It's also an argument that isn't applied equally. Everybody gets upset when people ask feminists why they advocate for the issues of women in first world countries instead of working for the betterment of the people in, for example, Africa, but when MRAs advocate for the betterment of men in western society, it's suddenly okay to call that "misdirected effort"?

Either it's applied equally and everybody who isn't working to help those who need help the most gets shamed, or we just let people fight for whoever they want to fight.
Or, and maybe that's the most reasonable version, we do a bit of both, but still apply it equally.

Anything else though... that's just selective application of moral values.

 

[civver_764]

Why would I be desperate to do anything? Given your background, maybe it is you who are desperate to paint yourself as a victim? That would make much more sense.

We're talking about people being sent against their will to die gruesome deaths, based solely on their gender. Are you trying to deny that they are victims?

It's merely a fact that sexism against women creates victims both female and male, as others have pointed out before. But just because there are victims from both genders doesn't mean the sexism isn't towards women. The subject of the discrimination is still the subject - a subset of women might even benefit, but it's still sexism towards women. If I were to institute a draft for people with IQ of 100 and above only, it would be discrimination towards people with IQ of below 100, even if they may stand to lose less than their 'smarter' compatriots.

Sexism is a two sided coin that affects both genders. You're just looking at it from the female perspective, but there is also the male perspective which must be considered.

 

[Honor]

There is nothing conjectural about this.

Yes, there is. "Men went to war instead of women because they were stronger" is pure, unadultered conjecture. If it is about the overall strength of armies, why didn't both men and women go to war, then? That would add numbers and strengthen the fighting force, even if the women were mere fodder. You cannot explain the involvement of only men in wars without adding love/human bonding to your explanation.

Granted, social sciences are riddled with conjecture.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While I agree trying to prevent suicide might not be everyone's #1 priority (I mean we have AIDS, cancer, slavery, sex trafficking, and so on) I find it odd that that's your first thought when someone tries to prevent suicide. Should have been "Way to go! Preventing suicides is a good idea, let's do it!"

The thing I was responding to was "suicide as a men's issue," not suicide prevention in general. I have a similar view on the crisis around the suicide rate for veterans. As a veteran I understand how it is a problem that can be seen as unique to veterans, and the rate is higher than the norm. I also acknowledge that it may be practical to have dedicated specialists and hotlines that can focus on the issues veterans face. But I think that the problem really should be addressed in terms of the suicide rate overall and providing intervention generally rather than isolating it as a "veteran's issue."

I have no inclination to prioritize "men's issues" because generally speaking men are not the disadvantaged group. When a "men's issue" has an overlap that makes it really an "everyone issue," like suicide prevention, I think it should be handled as such.

 

[aelf]

We're talking about people being sent against their will to die gruesome deaths, based solely on their gender. Are you trying to deny that they are victims?

Sexism is a two sided coin that affects both genders. You're just looking at it from the female perspective, but there is also the male perspective which must be considered.

Alright, then. I guess in your mind, if a country wages a war of aggression against another but ends up with more casualties, then this country is the victim or at least one of the victims. Got it.

The world of alternative facts.

 

[Honor]

So I see I was not wrong in my assessment and this is indeed how you operate.

That women were also loved by their male counterparts does not take away from the existence of sexism and sexist ideas. It's tangential to the point, just like the true origin of patriarchy is only tangential to the question of whether it exists. If you can't make a distinction between the threads of different (if somewhat related) issues and arguments, then I say there will seldom be any reason to attempt a discussion with you.

This was not a tangential point - see my post above.

 

[Ryika]

Alright, then. I guess in your mind, if a country wages a war of aggression against another but ends up with more casualties, then this country is the victim or at least one of the victims. Got it.

Individuals who are sent to their death are not "the country".