~ archived since 2018 ~

BBC News - At least 11 dead after attack on Russian army recruits training to fight in Ukraine. OP: Bound to happen when men are drafted against their will.

Arguesovereverythin

October 15, 2022

38 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	BBC News - At least 11 dead after attack on Russian army recruits training to fight in Ukraine. OP: Bound to happen when men are drafted against their will.
Author	Arguesovereverythin
Upvotes	38
Comments	20
Date	October 15, 2022 10:39 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/y50qrg/bbc_news_at_least_11_dead_after_attack_on_russian/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bbc-news-at-least-11-dead-after-attack-on-russian.1135485 https://theredarchive.com/post/1135485

Comments

[–]TrilIias 18 points19 points20 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoodeBoi 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Feminists didn't invent misandry, and misandry is not exclusive to feminists. As much as feminists like to accuse us of only ever targeting feminism, they only do that because they don't actually pay any attention to what we do, and if they did they would see that we constantly criticize trad cons as well.

For example, you may remember that Republican who was running for congress who tweeted "Men are meant to be expendable. Women are not." Now I don't think he was motivated by feminism, and he expressed the exact same attitude that caused the sort of thing we're seeing in Russia.

I really don't want to water down the meaning of "misandry" the way feminists have with "misogyny," I'd rather use both sparingly and only when appropriate. However, attitudes such as "men are meant to be expendable, women are not" truly are most accurately described as just plain misandry.

By the way, women are going to have a hard time making babies without men to father them, unless the Russians decide that monogamy is out the window. Still, maybe selectin the most genetically preferable young men and sending them to get killed before they've had a chance to reproduce and leaving all the women to have to settle for at best the divided support of one of the few men left, may not be the best strategy for creating future soldiers. And consider that this is for an offensive war, they don't have to do this.

I don't think it's just "assholes in power that want men to fight and women to crank out future soldiers," I mean it's not like they're conscripting women to force them to give birth. And why not? I'd rather be forced into pregnancy for 9 months and parenthood afterwards than be forced onto a battlefield. What's the logic behind conscripting only men? I don't see an answer other than misandry.

[–]Obarak123 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I assume this is a response to the question I posed at the end, which was "What's the logic behind conscripting only men?"

I guess I could have been a bit more clear. What is the logic behind conscripting men into the military but not conscripting women by forcing them into pregnancy to create more soldiers? I get that men are better at fighting and women are uniquely capable of giving birth to children, but why not force both to perform the tasks that they are best suited for? Why are only men forced into performing their role?

And don't tell me that it's because being forced into pregnancy or even parenthood is more egregious than being forced to fight and die a brutal death on a battlefield, because I'm not buying that.

This isn't Russia sending men to war because they hate men

Could it be that they are sending men because they view men as expendable? Is male disposability not misandry?

[–]Obarak123 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But I said that they are sending men because they are the best chance they have to win the war. They are not an expendable resource in a war they are a valuable one. Hence its not misandry.

Valuing men only as cannon fodder is like valuing women only as sex objects. Maybe you can make the case that you can value a woman for her sexuality while also valuing her for her humanity, but that's because there isn't necessarily a conflict between someone's humanity and their sexuality. You don't necessarily have to sacrifice one for the other. However, with military conscription, you are sacrificing one for the other. We value men as weapons and cannon fodder at the expense of their lives, their rights, and their humanity, so in this case we are valuing men strictly as weapons, which sure does smell like misandry to me.

it also seems your suggesting that unless women are forced into pregnancy then that's proof that men are hated.

No, I'm not saying this proves men are hated, I'm saying it proves we value men's humanity less than women's. We're willing to sacrifice men's humanity to use them as weapons, but we aren't willing to sacrifice women's humanity to use their sexuality, even if doing so wouldn't destroy women's humanity to the same extent that we destroy men's.

Add more people to the misery does not lessen the evil.

I agree, which is why I don't think women should be forced to give birth to a new generation of soldiers, and also why I don't think men should be forced to be soldiers.

Maybe, and there are studies that show this, people feel more sorry for women than men and would not be able to visit that upon them?

I think you're right, and I think that's because we don't recognize men's innate value as humans the way we do with women. I call this misandry. It gets men killed, hence why I initially argued that this flies in the face of the whole "misogyny kills women, misandry only hurts men's feelings" argument.

[–]GoodeBoi -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obarak123 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Glum-One816 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arguesovereverythin[S] 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poop_helper 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arguesovereverythin[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arguesovereverythin[S] 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unsure1771 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]valintin 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dumwitxh 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixlebarbu 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Initial-Laugh1442 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link