[RD] Feminism

[aelf]

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

Have you considered the Elektra and Oedipus complexes, though? There may be more to the love between men and women that adds a dimension of victimisation and power to love/human bonding.

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

And...?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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. You can almost have nothing but that.

Tradition and habit. There was definitely a level of technology where upper body strength was of primary concern in combat. In that age sending women to war, investing their time in training, etc, would have been pointless. Technology may have progressed past that a long time ago, but mindsets lag well behind, always. Particularly the mindsets of military thinkers. I dunno if it is still the case, but when I was in the navy the full dress uniform for the commanding officer of a nuclear submarine included a sword.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, there is. "Men went to war instead of women because they were stronger" is pure, unadultered conjecture.

"Men went to war because men were considered stronger than women" is not even slightly conjecture. In virtually all known civilizations women were considered totally unsuitable for warfare, because they were considered weak, too emotional to think clearly, and so on. This is not remotely conjectural- we know this from plenty of references in historical sources.

You cannot explain the involvement of only men in wars without adding love/human bonding to your explanation.

This, on the other hand, is conjecture...and, in my view, conjecture that's very unlikely to be correct.

 

[civver_764]

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 people who were forced to die against their will for the winning country were certainly victims, are you going to deny that?

 

[Honor]

"Men went to war because men were considered stronger than women" is not even slightly conjecture. In virtually all known civilizations women were considered totally unsuitable for warfare, because they were considered weak, too emotional to think clearly, and so on. This is not remotely conjectural- we know this from plenty of references in historical sources.

Please do cite some of those. Mind you, though, why people act and why they say they act are entirely different things.

 

[Honor]

Have you considered the Elektra and Oedipus complexes, though? There may be more to the love between men and women that adds a dimension of victimisation and power to love/human bonding.



And...?

Do you claim to not share the sentiment that men were too proud to let women fight their wars, and generally looked down upon them? This discussion is no tangent - it is at the heart of your sexism problem, and the sentiment is an incorrect conjecture for a lot of humans. This is the unspoken yet persistent conjecture I am arguing against.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The people who were forced to die against their will for the winning country were certainly victims, are you going to deny that?

War is a collective decision. Your attempt to claim that individuals are not responsible for their collective decisions is not going to carry any arguments for you. I am responsible for my nation's unprovoked attack on Iraq just as much as anyone else that is part of my nation. I don't massage my conscience about it by pretending I'm not, I learn from my mistake.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you claim to not share the sentiment that men were too proud to let women fight their wars, and generally looked down upon them? This discussion is no tangent - it is at the heart of your sexism problem, and it is an incorrect conjecture for a lot of humans. This is the unspoken yet persistent conjecture I am arguing against.

Unfortunately you are arguing it by ignoring what was a practical reality for centuries, which weakens your position considerably.

 

[Ryika]

And...?

And so the soldiers who die in a war that their side has instigated are still victims of that war.

 

[Lexicus]

Please do cite some of those. Mind you, though, why people act and why they say they act are entirely different things.

What I'm talking about is misogyny and gender roles in historical sources. As we have already agreed, patriarchy emerges along with agriculture and stratified societies, and the exclusion of women from warfare is only one aspect of this. Of course, it is typical abuser behavior to claim that the abuse is due to the "love" that the abuser has for the abused.

Do you claim to not share the sentiment that men were too proud to let women fight their wars, and generally looked down upon them? This discussion is no tangent - it is at the heart of your sexism problem, and it is an incorrect conjecture for a lot of humans.

I'm not sure who this is directed at or what it is meant to address.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And so the soldiers who die in a war that their side has instigated are still victims of that war.

No, they are the instigators of that war and casualties of their own choices.

 

[Honor]

Unfortunately you are arguing it by ignoring what was a practical reality for centuries, which weakens your position considerably.

Do you think it is possible that you (as a people) could be only now feeling that way about your past? Do you think things could be a lot more complicated and people/cultures a lot more varied than you assume?

 

[Broken_Erika]

No, they are the instigators of that war and casualties of their own choices.

Unless those soldiers refuse to fight, then those soldiers are cowards and traitors.

 

[Honor]

What I'm talking about is misogyny and gender roles in historical sources. As we have already agreed, patriarchy emerges along with agriculture and stratified societies, and the exclusion of women from warfare is only one aspect of this. Of course, it is typical abuser behavior to claim that the abuse is due to the "love" that the abuser has for the abused.



I'm not sure who this is directed at or what it is meant to address.

You are not making a distinction between the people in power and the people being abused. Men may have been tools of the patriarchy and fought their wars, but they were not the ones with the power. Completely different motives.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Remember that Patriarchy is the rule by Fathers (or self proclaimed Father Figures), and has never been concerned with the power or well being of all men.

No, they are the instigators of that war and casualties of their own choices.

Not if they are forced into the role by conscription backed by threat of violence or even strong social ostracism.

Soldiers who eagerly volunteer to fight are certainly complicit and bare personal blame, but that does not go for everyone.


(In the world of Game of Thrones, would you deny that the eunuch-slave soldiers called the Unsullied are victims of the "Good Masters?" just because they are also instruments that they use to oppress others?)

 

[Honor]

I'm not sure who this is directed at or what it is meant to address.

Not you; aelf. But you do share the sentiment, I think.

 

[Lexicus]

No, they are the instigators of that war and casualties of their own choices.

This may be true of the modern US but I don't think it's at all accurate for polities in which political decisions are actually not collective. Through most of history most people have been victims of war, not 'participants.'
However, to portray this as a victimization of men particularly is just wrong. This is an anarchist/revolutionary criticism of how society is organized. It has nothing to do with men being oppressed because they're men.

You are not making a distinction between the people in power and the people being abused. Men may have been tools of the patriarchy and fought their wars, but they were not the ones with the power. Completely different motives.

I don't know how this is relevant to anything I've said.

Not you, aelf. But you do share the sentiment, I think.

What sentiment?

 

[Akka]

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.

That's actually my main beef here - the double-standard and doublethink and doublespeak.
When it comes to the core principle, I'm actually kind of an old-school feminist (the ones that are against discrimination and wants an equal playing field). What I am against and what irritates me to no end is the one-sided narrative that apply two sets of standards (and it's exactly the same for the discussions about racism).

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.

I'd fully agree with you, but then I can't help to notice that you use this reasoning ("we should take the whole issue into account, not just focus on the issue when it affects disproportionnately group X") only when it's about white men.
When it's about women or other races, then suddendly it becomes an issue worthy of being singled out.
Hence what I said just above.

War is a collective decision. Your attempt to claim that individuals are not responsible for their collective decisions is not going to carry any arguments for you. I am responsible for my nation's unprovoked attack on Iraq just as much as anyone else that is part of my nation. I don't massage my conscience about it by pretending I'm not, I learn from my mistake.

I agree with this, but again only if it's applied equally to everyone - which means women are just as much to blame for war and should support the same kind of burden.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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"?

Where did you get the idea that feminists don't care about people in Africa? I don't know of any woman other than Winnie Mandela who has been criticized for instigating fighting or corruption in Africa, and I'll admit that I don't know enough about her situation to know if/to what extent she is guilty of what people say she is.

So in Africa, it's basically the men who start the wars, the religious authorities (men) who say birth control is sinful, and men who spread the ludicrous notion that if a man has sex with a virgin, he'll be cured of AIDS/become immune (whichever version of the story is being spread), and so sexual exploitation continues, more women become sick, and end up having more children than they can reasonably support and educate.

I'm all for providing birth control and education to the women in Africa - in fact, Canada is picking up some of the slack from the U.S., since the Republicans redoubled their screeching hysteria about how "evil" Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are. These people don't give a damn about the women or the children after they're born. All they care about is the fetus, and not about whether or not the eventual child will have a chance to survive, never mind thrive.

 

[Honor]

I don't know how this is relevant to anything I've said.
What sentiment?

The sentiment that men were too proud to let women fight their wars, and generally looked down upon them.

My other post was to clarify who the abuser was in our scenario that you laid out.