~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
mynist
[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (85 children) | Copy Link
It will be very interesting to see what happens if There is ever the need for a conscripted army again...
[–]NotKennyG 60 points61 points62 points 14 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link
Let's hope that never happens because it's just too devastating to think about all the women who will suffer when their husbands return home without arms or legs.
[–]catipillar 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or serious.
[–]NotKennyG 44 points45 points46 points 14 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link
It's a reference to this quote by Hillary Clinton which was posted earlier in the thread:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
Apparently, fathers who die in war only have daughters and sons who die only have mothers.
Hell, forget about the suffering of boys losing fathers and fathers losing boys to war, which Ms. Clinton doesn't seem to think is comparable to daughters losing fathers or mothers losing sons - even the dead, disfigured and mamed soldiers themselves are a mere afterthought when determining who the "primary victims" of war are.
Everyone suffers in war, but pretending women suffer more than men is a bit ridiculous, just like my comment.
[–]FazedOut 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it was a stupid thing to say, for sure. But to be fair: the dead are the only ones who don't suffer any more.
[–]catipillar 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Hopefully no one really thinks that women are disproportionately affected. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, by ANY stretch, (in fact, I think she's as much of a whore as I think select other politicians are, if not worse!) but I'm going to venture to guess that what she was trying to do was remind people that when thousands of men die horrible deaths, the pain simply doesn't end because it continues back home?
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
She shouldn't have used the word "primary" if this was what she meant...
[–]catipillar 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
True, she shouldn't have. I'm just really hoping that she misspoke.
[–]Hamakua 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
She did not. If you read the entire speech and understand who she was speaking to and the motivations at the time, it was purposeful and in essence "victimizing" those who were still alive in order to pander to the feminist voting block. "Primary" was purposeful and she got away with it. It has not affected, at all, her political career, and the only place you ever hear about the quote is in places like this.
[–]catipillar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Someone linked the entire speech for me; I did read it. I'm not sure why it would pander to feminists, but she was certainly trying to convince the women that she was speaking to that she could relate to their plight, though I'd say the way she did it was extrordinarily thoughtless.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]catipillar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I've seen this before. You realize that this is misleading; it's not the story of feminism as told by women, it's the story of nothing as misrepresented by the manhood academy, right? More then half these women shown have made no statement toward feminism one way or the other. They're just random clips taken out of context that are used to create a story that has nothing to do with what they're originally saying. Have you seen it? It's pretty funny.
[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
She was patronising female narcissism.
Like a shampoo advert.
[–]NotKennyG 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Possibly, but if so, she should have actually said that instead of claiming women to be the "primary victims" and then attempting to substantiate this claim with her selective nonsense that ignores the concept of men having sons as well as daughters and boys having fathers as well as mothers.
Her words are pretty clear here and it's hard to interpret them as anything other than what she said.
[–]catipillar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I dunno...I simply can't swallow the fact that someone could mean that women at home are the PRIMARY victims of war. I read a lot about war...don't ask me why. This just seems unconcionable to me. It's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source? I'd like to read the whole thing in all of it's potentially horrifying context.
[–]NotKennyG 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the text of her speech at the First Ladies Conference on Domestic Violence where she made that claim.
She made the same claim again in 2011 but she was smart enough not to include her bullshit rationalization for it this time. Obvious bullshit seems less obvious if you don't let people know the flawed logic that let you arrive at that conclusion.
If she wants to focus on the impact war has on women, that's absolutely fine, but she needs to drop this "primary victim" bullshit because it's both unequivocally false and minimizes and trivializes male suffering from war.
[–]AryoBarzan 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
Considering this is /mr and not one of the moronic feminist subreddits that actually believe that sort of garbage, I think it's pretty safe to say he's being facetious.
[–]catipillar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link
I can't imagine why...if her husband is missing his limbs she'll have to wipe his ass, feed him, bathe him, shave him, brush his hair, write his letters, answer his phone for him, push his wheelchair, dole out his meds, while taking care of the kids and working...not to mention she'll have to be stoic as fuck for about a decade while her husband adjusts to the devestation and strain of having lost an enormous aspect of his independence, Why don't we just hope that this never happens because it's too devastating to think of all of the FEMILIES who will suffer when their husbands return home without arms or legs, men, women and children included?
[–]AryoBarzan 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
Or she'll just divorce him, take half his earnings in the military and bail because nobody is going to FORCE HER to do any of that like he was FORCED to return without arms/legs. I'm in NO WAY proclaiming that I am hoping ANYBODY goes to war, but I feel a WHOLE LOT worst for people who don't have their limbs intact than the ones who do and are just caretakers. That, of course, doesn't mean that the women will have it EASY before you claim that I implied otherwise.
[–]catipillar -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
I don't know...military wives are a pretty fanatically dedicated bunch. A grade school friend of mine runs a huge support group for women in this very position. They certainly suffer. It's hard seeing the man that you love suffering, and it's hard being his full time nurse. No one wants to see the people that they love suffer. That's why I think this is more of an issue of politics; the way war impacts families should certainly give us all reason to force our government to make more responsible decisions about how we interact with the world in gerenal.
[–]AryoBarzan 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
I do. That's great that you have a friend that has a support group. Most of the military wives are young women (ages: 18-24) that 'married up' to receive the military benefits. They can usually be seen cheating on their spouse at the local bar/club (of course on his bill) or sleeping off that hangover the next morning at the house he pays for. All of course, while he's out risking his life and general physical well-being. Is this all military wives? No, certainly not. But a large amount of them, yes.
And no, I don't feel very bad for the 'full time nurses' out there. If you were to tell me that I could either 1) lose my arms/legs and have a caretaker or 2) be a caretaker to a loved one that has his/her arms/legs missing, I would take option 2 without any further ado. People in this country do NOT respect the sacrifices men make enough in this country. If a man goes into a military it's a statistic, if a woman goes into the military she's paraded around on shows like 'Oprah' or 'The View' like the next coming of Christ.
[–]NightAria -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
How do you know there is a large amount of army wives cheating on their husbands? Was there research or do you just go out to the bars looking for army wives yourself?
[–]AryoBarzan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
It's called personal experience of having friends in the military and having friends that are military wives. And I am FAR from the only person that has experienced this 'phenomena'. Tom Leykis had MULTIPLE shows about this very topic with many MILITARY WIVES themselves calling in AGREEING with him.
[–]NightAria2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah cause some douchebag radio personality is a reputable source.
[–]AryoBarzan0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Actually, he is. That 'douchebag radio personality' has brought up more of men's issues and probably brought in more MRA's than 95% of the people here. And yes, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE along with MULTIPLE people calling in explaing the same 'phenomena' is reputable for me. What, is everything supposed to be presented as a statistic from the United States Bureau for me to believe it?
We'll I'm not much for generalizing a whole gender so ya know it seems you are thought.
When the hell did I 'generalize a whole gender'? I just said that the majority of MILITARY WIVES (not all WOMEN) displayed this sort of behavior. And yes, MANY agree with me on this.
[–]NightAria1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Many of the he-men woman haters up in here agree with you. The majority believing it doesn't make it correct.
[–]AryoBarzan1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
... What? Last I checked this subreddit was about MEN'S RIGHTS. This is a pretty damn clean forum and any 'he-men woman hater' is downvoted into oblivion, hence the reason so many women exist here (and thank the lord for that). Do you even know what 'he-men woman haters' are like? It seems that you'd be in for a RUDE awakening if you actually met one.
I dunno why don't you tell me what they are like? I went to that radio jockeys videos and all i saw were a bunch of guys calling all women liars. That seems kind of generalizing and hateful to me. I never go around saying all guys are liars. I like to stick to the fact we are all humans and all of us have the same tendencies to lie, cheat, be charitable and kind. I've been reading these forums and a lot of it seems to women bash to be honest. I came here because I do believe there are both womans and mens equal rights issue's. Sadly I've seen too much female bashing to take this subreddit seriously.
Well, I will agree with you that Tom Leykis isn't the most 'civil' in his discussions about female infidelity and the like. He is a 'shock jock' after all and he has to be 'shocking' in order to get viewers at times. My point was that that doesn't make him WRONG about everything else... he clearly presents data/statistics and hard facts about how men are actively screwed in the Western world and warns/teaches men how to deal with it. If you listen to him for long enough, you'll notice this. This is PARAMOUNT to males everywhere and, in my opinion, overlooks the fact that he makes outrageous claims at times to get viewers. I can definitely see how you as a female can be easily turned off by him, but he has done A LOT of good for men everywhere and he is one of the ONLY that has been brought up these issues with the popularity he has.
As far as bashing women goes, I have yet to see this... I'm far from a 'misogynist' and I really haven't seen any female bashing here. I actually gave up my adminship at another forum due to a flood of 'masculinists' who were just as emotionally-driven as the feminists. I also have never received any actual examples from women claiming it does bash women. Maybe its because you live in a society which consistently PRAISES women and promotes women being praised for nothing, so seeing a subreddit that doesn't do that suddenly makes you feel like its bashing women? Either way, thanks for actually giving a shit to a degree about men's issues.
I don recall ever being praised for being a woman. Also I just remembered that the day I happened upon this place is the day The Amazing Atheist came here and threatened to rape some girl. I find you only get praised as a woman if you are specific type of woman. I don't think I've ever been praised for having ovaries.
I have been following TJ (The Amazing Atheist) for quite some time and I am literally COMPLETELY oblivious to any of this 'threatening to rape some girl'. Definitely doesn't sound like something TJ would do, ableit in some very jokingly tone. As far as appraisal goes, all you have to do is turn on the lower echelon of channels during normal work-hours on week-days. Women are CONSTANTLY celebrated about how they should be 'proud to be women' within modern society whilst, of course, men are shamed and taught to be 'reprogrammed' against their natural instincts since it 'oppresses women'. There are MANY 'women only' groups at my school but not a single 'men only' group in sight, where they talk about how great it is to be a woman and go over 'herstory'. As far as being a 'specific type of woman' goes, these 'specific type of woman' are generally nothing to be praised about. Example: Oprah stating that 'mothers have the most difficult job on the planet', as if men drilling holes to the center of the earth to provide for those mothers are deserving of less praise than mothers. Example 2: Oprah bragging on about how some woman that went through boot camp in order to join the military is amazing. As if men haven't done the same thing since the beginning of time, not to mention make the ULTIMATE sacrifice. Which leads into example 3: Hillary Clinton saying that 'women are the real victims of war' because they lose their fathers/husbands/sons, is pure appraisal for absolutely doing nothing.
Hope that helps :)
That's 2 women just stating things so far. I honestly see the herstory thing as the same thing my parents told me when I asked why there was no Kids day but a Fathers and Mothers day. "Everyday is kids day". What is this reprogramming against men's natural instinct? I also see men going to war more often and being put into combat more is due the misconception that women are too weak to be in combat. A lot of these inequalities between women and men are perpetuated by outdated views on them both. Instead of going after women for not being in combat Id first complain about going to war over nothing in the first place.
That's 2 women just stating things so far.
PLENTY more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM
I honestly see the herstory thing as the same thing my parents told me when I asked why there was no Kids day but a Fathers and Mothers day. "Everyday is kids day".
Sorry, but I don't understand this point whatsoever.
What is this reprogramming against men's natural instinct?
Constantly telling men that 'masculine' traits are 'negative' traits. Telling boys they need to be more 'feminine' and that feminine traits should be praised over masculine ones.
I also see men going to war more often and being put into combat more is due the misconception that women are too weak to be in combat.
Personally, I don't see this as a misconception but truth feminists pretend doesn't exist like most of biology. Men being FORCED to go to war because they want to PROTECT women shows how much MEN sacrifice for just that. Instead of getting praise, they come back home to feminists telling them that womens problems are more important than theirs.
A lot of these inequalities between women and men are perpetuated by outdated views on them both.
To an extent. Some things however, such as biological components, feminists seem to dismiss unless it BENEFITS women.
Instead of going after women for not being in combat Id first complain about going to war over nothing in the first place.
I disagree. Feminists have fought to allow women to vote on issues that could potentially send our country into war, albeit women will not have to suffer the consequence of actually GOING to war due to there being no mandatory draft for them. This is completely sexist and shows the true essence of feminism; the belief that women should be benefitted but not receive the consequences of said benefits. Men die for women's decisions. THIS needs to be addressed before war is even mentioned.
Yes there are lots of outlying crazies in the movement just like in political ideologies and many other ideologies so feminism isn't the only ideology that gets the crazies on their side. What I was saying is that almost all history is male history so what's wrong with women talking about the females who made history? Now a days women are just as suited for combat cause anyone can shoot a gun. You are putting down women for not being in war but then saying they aren't suitable for it. Yes women are biologically weaker than men but does that make us second class in your eyes?Are we simply to go back to being like men's servants and property because you are stronger than us? I don't believe anyone should be forced to go to war. There is just as many army dodging men in politics in your country are you just as mad at them for making decisions on war? It was not feminism that made the rule for only men being drafted. That rule is definitely brought to you by sexism. I've never seen a feminist say guys should be more female. I've seen them saying that it isn't right to put down people and characteristics that are feminine. To end this rant fem·i·nism the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. There it is, it is a simple belief that women and men should have equal rights. Anything outside of that is different.
Yes there are lots of outlying crazies in the movement just like in political ideologies and many other ideologies so feminism isn't the only ideology that gets the crazies on their side.
Of course there are crazies in all ideologies, difference is that feminists don't DENOUNCE these people like most other ideologies do (ie. Westboro Baptist Church). Crazies of the MRM are immediately excommunicated in our movement while feminist crazies are praised and made REQUIRED reading for most feminist courses (Valerie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, etc).
What I was saying is that almost all history is male history so what's wrong with women talking about the females who made history?
Yes, I agree. Men have made history and we get very little praise for it even though nearly everything that you use in your everyday life was invented by a MAN. Instead we get shamed for being 'war mongers' and 'paedofiles/rapists'.
Now a days women are just as suited for combat cause anyone can shoot a gun. You are putting down women for not being in war but then saying they aren't suitable for it.
I tend to utilize biology and personal experience over feminist rhetoric for my reasoning, so no, I don't believe women aren't suitable for it. I just believe MEN are BETTER at it. If you want to just write me off as a 'sexist' without any other reason than that, then go right ahead, you are entitled to your opinion. I believe men are more 'logical' and less 'emotional' which allows them to handle stressful situations better than women (speaking in generality, of course).
Yes women are biologically weaker than men but does that make us second class in your eyes?
It depends on the situation. Men have developed the technology (and still continue to do so) to allow women to work hand-in-hand with men. There were times when women COULDN'T work with men (due to a lack of technological advancement to suit women) and wouldn't be able to. Of course feminists, instead of looking into logic/reasoning, would chalk this up as 'oppression' and something men should be blamed for.
Are we simply to go back to being like men's servants and property because you are stronger than us?
Alright, look. There was a time (you may have read about it in history class years ago) when men would forced to be the breadwinners and endure back-breaking labor in order to provide for their family (ie. you). Believe it or not, cooking/cleaning isn't the most difficult job on the planet, especially when you compare the ridiculously laborous occupations men had to take in order to make their family SURVIVE. Females have generally been 'caretakers', that doesn't make you 'servants'. If anything, you should be thankful that thanks to the efforts of MEN, you didn't have to BREAK down your body doing difficult labor in order to support yourself. You had somebody ELSE support you by their BACKBREAKING labor. Who looks like the 'servant' now?
There is just as many army dodging men in politics in your country are you just as mad at them for making decisions on war?
Kind of hard to dodge the 'army' when you have a MANDATORY draft for your gender. Not saying its impossible, but certainly the minority. And I'm more upset at the sexist law, not the people involved.
It was not feminism that made the rule for only men being drafted.
You're right, it wasn't. They just set up an institution in which women are ONLY benefitted and refused to support men's issues (and created the hateful misandry nonsense we see in society today) all while hiding behind the veil of 'equality'. In other words, they allowed women to vote but only (very minorly) pushed for women to be drafted as well. Feminists never wanted 'equality' and utilized this lie as a way to attain the benefits women now enjoy in modern society without any of the responsiblities that come with it.
That rule is definitely brought to you by sexism.
Well, yes. Feminist sexism.
I've never seen a feminist say guys should be more female.
I've seen (and spoke to) plenty.
To end this rant fem·i·nism the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. There it is, it is a simple belief that women and men should have equal rights.
Feminism seems to not mind men being circumcised and being drafted into the military too much, now does it? As TJ beautifully put it, feminism is the belief that all of societys issues can be solved by focusing on the issues of one genders. If feminism was actually about 'equal rights', then all 30,000+ of us would never be here.
Be thankful for being seen as unable to work? I want to work, I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a woman and apparently I can't lift a 25 lb box. Men gets shit tones of praise in history that is just simply not true that men get no praise for what they've done in history. You say that outlying feminists don't get shunned but that video you showed me was in response to women telling a crazy feminist that her views are wrong. It seems like you are complaining that women don't treat men like their our saviours. Like the years of treating us like property yeah we are sooo fucking grateful. The reason why a lot of women don't try and fight for men's is because of this type of rhetoric from guys like you. Yes I don't believe in circumcision and I don't believe in drafts. I don't believe in majority custody going to just the mother and many other mens rights issues but when guys say we should be grateful that because society didn't see woman as useful human beings that we got out of work, I'm sorry but that's when I stop trying to fight for your battles and start trying to defend myself from people calling me irrational and weak.
Be thankful for being seen as unable to work? I want to work, I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a woman and apparently I can't lift a 25 lb box.
You see that part when I was talking about 'history'? Your worries in living in industrial America were far heavier than lifting a 25 lb. box. Would you like to work on a railroad where little boys developed crooked spines while working 10+ hours a day? Would you like to work in a mine which (if you were lucky enough to survive long enough without having it collapse) got 'black lung' by the age of 40? Would you like to work in filthy sweatshops where little boys would develop cancer from the fumes? Didn't think so. Life wasn't always as EASY as it is today.
Men gets shit tones of praise in history that is just simply not true that men get no praise for what they've done in history.
Certain men get praise (ie. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, etc), but MEN as a whole NEVER get praise. Whereas women get to sit around and talk about hard it is being a woman when men were (and still are) wearing out their joints to support them.
You say that outlying feminists don't get shunned but that video you showed me was in response to women telling a crazy feminist that her views are wrong.
I don't believe I ever said that...
It seems like you are complaining that women don't treat men like their our saviours.
No, I'm complaining that instead of being praised as a gender, we're looked upon as a bunch of guys sitting around drinking beers while makign our 'female slaves' do all the work. Which is quite erroneous...
Like the years of treating us like property yeah we are sooo fucking grateful.
Yes, because only women had to do 'hard work'. You do know that men were also 'property' of their employers as well, right? This whole 'property' debate is a large feminist paradox to begin with since laws weren't advanced enough at the time to decipher different laws for different people. EVERYBODY was essentially property of somebody, but utmost, the King/Queen/Monarch of the time.
The reason why a lot of women don't try and fight for men's is because of this type of rhetoric from guys like you.
And what rhetoric is that exactly? Logic/reasoning rather than made-up conspiracy theories about 'male power' and 'patriarchy' created to blame all of societals issues on males in the first place? Get real. When 'guys like me' weren't around in large numbers, they didn't seem to give a shit about men then either. I doubt ANY of us 'stopped' the feminists from doing any good for men.
I don't believe in majority custody going to just the mother and many other mens rights issues but when guys say we should be grateful that because society didn't see woman as useful human beings that we got out of work, I'm sorry but that's when I stop trying to fight for your battles and start trying to defend myself from people calling me irrational and weak.
Once again, you simply are incapable (or unwilling) to notice that society wasn't as advanced as it is now throughout history. You've been force-fed so much feminist rhetoric that it is impossible to for anybody to tell you that society wasn't as simple as 'men controlling women'. So instead, you refer to the feminist defense method of just calling us 'sexists' and that 'we don't see women as useful human beings'. It's far easier than actually debating with us. And nobody asked you to fight 'our battles', but you see... there's a little wording in your little movement that states that you are for 'EQUALITY' and that means EQUALITY of all sexes, not just women. The fact that you admit that feminists don't care for the equality of men shows that feminism, as a whole, is basically a lie to begin with. Now, do you understand why so many people are frustrated with feminism?
I told you I care but when my time is taken up by defending my own gender then I can't fight for either. You are strawmanning me to all over the place here. You are generalizing feminists saying we only see men as our oppressors and that you are all beer guzzling apes. I haven't been saying anything bad about men in this era and haven't been saying anything bad about men in general. You've been spending this whole time calling women weak and irrational. I've never met women that hate men as much as these apparent women you know do. I can see how you bring the male hate out in them thought lol. Contrary to popular belief you don't have to hate men to be a feminist. Feminism is simply what I showed you before. I don't believe it was just men that decided that woman were to follow men and speak when they are spoken to and that a woman should not teach that's more of a bible thing. Stop putting other womens beliefs in my mouth I have not said patriarchy or male power once. Yes I don't like the male hate that goes on within feminism but I also don't like how women are looked down upon here.
I told you I care but when my time is taken up by defending my own gender then I can't fight for either.
Kinda hard to imagine you spend much 'time' really 'defending your own gender' when you have your own national gender organizations defending yours already along with the courts/politicians lobbying for you. Who exactly stands up for men? Pretty much nobody, either due to fear of offending feminist/feminist-lobbyists or because they've been brainwashed into believing that men deserve less rights over women due to feminist fallacies.
You are strawmanning me to all over the place here.
You have to be fairly hard-pressed to call anything I've said so far 'strawmanning'.
You are generalizing feminists saying we only see men as our oppressors and that you are all beer guzzling apes.
Well, I sort of have to generalize considering it'd be impossible for me to separate each and every feminist when I'm describing them as a whole. And I will say, that the majority of real feminists (especially the ones that are heavily praised) generally DO view us as such. And I also speak from lots of personal experience of directly speaking with feminists myself.
I haven't been saying anything bad about men in this era and haven't been saying anything bad about men in general.
I never really said you did. However, most 'feminist fallacies' generally put men in a negative point of view and never highlight the good men have done for society and our gender. Instead, we're blamed for all of the bad of history and erased from the good. This is the sort of extremist behavior that people should fight against, not support. MRA's do not wish to 're-write' history to please our movement.
You've been spending this whole time calling women weak and irrational.
No. I said I believe men TEND to be stronger and more rational/logical as a whole, mostly due to basic biological factors. There are certain women that are both stronger and more rational than certain men, but an exception to a rule doesn't necessarily make a rule untrue.
I can see how you bring the male hate out in them thought lol.
Clearly, I've insulted women (and you) SO many times during this discussion. I mean, I don't know what to do with myself bottling up all this woman-hate all the time. Must be dat dere patriarchy!!!11111
Contrary to popular belief you don't have to hate men to be a feminist.
No, but it definitely helps. Especially if you're one of those well-regarded-within-the-feminist-circles called 'radical feminists'. You know like Hillary Clinton, Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin. Clearly no man-hate amongst those 'intellectuals'.
Feminism is simply what I showed you before.
And I simply showed you many ways in which it is not.
I don't believe it was just men that decided that woman were to follow men and speak when they are spoken to and that a woman should not teach that's more of a bible thing.
Um.. okay?
Stop putting other womens beliefs in my mouth I have not said patriarchy or male power once.
I apologize if you thought I was insinuating otherwise, I was utilizing an extreme example as a joke to how ridiculously illogical feminism belief is. Which, as I'm sure you know, 'patriarchy' and 'male power' are pretty HEAVY topics with feminists.
Yes I don't like the male hate that goes on within feminism but I also don't like how women are looked down upon here.
As I've said before, I really don't see how 'women are looked down upon' here especially since we have so many female members. If MRA's had such a low opinion of women, I'd doubt they'd stay around. Either way, if we spouted the same gender-hate that feminists spread about our gender to women, NOBODY would take us seriously. You can always re-watch that video I sent you and replace 'men' with 'women' or 'male' with 'female' and see how you'd view our movement then. Or just type 'radical feminist quotes' into google and do the same thing.
One thing I will admit though is that you are certainly more logical and understanding than the vast majority of your fellow feminist compatriots I've had the (mis)fortune of debating with.
Would you like to work on a railroad where little boys developed crooked spines while working 10+ hours a day? Would you like to work in a mine which (if you were lucky enough to survive long enough without having it collapse) got 'black lung' by the age of 40? Would you like to work in filthy sweatshops where little boys would develop cancer from the fumes? Didn't think so. Life wasn't always as EASY as it is today.
I wouldn't have liked it but it would have been fair and if it meant being treated as equals I'm fine with that.
MEN as a whole NEVER get praise. Whereas women get to sit around and talk about hard it is being a woman when men were (and still are) wearing out their joints to support them.
No one should get any praise unless they've earned it in the first place. I'm not going to look highly upon some moronic guy or ditzy girl for them just simply being male or female. Anyone who would think all males or all females are just saints is an idiot. Furthermore It may have been that way in the past but nowadays unless you are making a good amount of money women are working as well. I don't know too many girls these days being supported by their man.
I'm not talking about in the legal sense property but the biblical texts that basically told men that believe in it that their wives are to remain [subservient to their husbands.] (http://nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm)
Kinda hard to imagine you spend much 'time' really 'defending your own gender' when you have your own national gender organizations defending yours already along with the courts/politicians lobbying for you.
You are kind of right there because spend most of my political fighting time towards better labour laws for everyone.
However, most 'feminist fallacies' generally put men in a negative point of view and never highlight the good men have done for society and our gender.
See that's the thing, men have been the makers of society up until recently in history with few women being able to shape it or have a say in how it was made. For good and for bad it's been men throughout history making history. I'm just saying maybe if women hadn't been looked down upon due to what the bible says or due to being generalized in the silly, irrational category(I quite resent the notion that women are generally irrational, I'll concede to weaker but not more irrational "when a man does it he's passionate when a woman does it she's over emotional or a bitch.") maybe we could of made history with men instead of beside them.
Well you've been calling most women irrational this whole time and irrational is just another word for crazy. I'm sorry but calling all women crazy seems kind of hateful. You saying all women are crazy is like me saying all men are violent because its in mens biology to be more aggressive. I do like debate and to talk about important inequality issues but its kind of hard to ignore my whole gender being called crazy. I saw the link you sent and yes its wrong for those women to be laughing about a guy getting his junk cut off.
Well, chances are you wouldn't have been 'equal' in labor efficiency to begin with. If the men around you were stronger (which, biologically, they would TEND to be), then hiring you over the average man would virtually ensure that efficiency would be lowered, now wouldn't it? And something tells me that after a week of working ONE of these jobs, you'd GLADLY work a 'traditional' mother job over them. Not to mention, SOMEBODY needed to take care of children as well (particularly in less-technologically-advanced periods of society) and tend to the house.
No one should get any praise unless they've earned it in the first place.
I agree, but feminists clearly don't.
I'm not talking about in the legal sense property but the biblical texts that basically told men that believe in it that their wives are to remain subservient to their husbands.
Religion is a completely separate entity on its own and certainly wasn't gender-biased. Religions (and society) have traditionally condemned men to death for stupid and irrelevant crimes. It's silly to nit-pick phrases from biblical texts when both genders were GREATLY affected by it.
Lol, and what 'labour laws' are you 'fighting for' exactly? Putting more women in more 'favorable' job positions and, in return, putting men in less favorable (and more dangerous/laborous) positions? One of the biggest hypocrisies within feminists is how they're constantly meandering about how there's so many males in the 'white collar' world, when there are probably ten times that many in the 'blue collar' world. But oh no, feminists don't want women working dangerous 'blue collar' jobs, no no no, anything but that!
See that's the thing, men have been the makers of society up until recently in history with few women being able to shape it or have a say in how it was made. For good and for bad it's been men throughout history making history.
There have been 'matriarchical' societies within history for women to make their mark, like Queen Elizabeth. It's just that most successful societies have been 'male-dominated' and instead of receiving gratitude for this success, men are force-fed stupid feminist fallacies like "there would have been no wars had women been in power" and the "world would have been more advanced had women been in power". In other words, civilization would've been better off if 'your gender' wasn't in power.
Well you've been calling most women irrational this whole time and irrational is just another word for crazy. I'm sorry but calling all women crazy seems kind of hateful.
Looks like this has turned into a game of semantics. Irrational generally means illogical. I believe that men TEND to be MORE logical and women TEND to be MORE emotional. It's the same reason men still DOMINATE the fields of engineering, mathematics and computer science even though women DOMINATE college campuses (mostly due to there being MULTIPLE female-only scholarships/grants but ZERO male-only scholarships/grants). These are the same fields that were utilized to develop, engineer and build the civilizations we call home today and it just shows how little things have changed biologically amongst the genders, even with feminists trying to 're-program' society into their grossly sexist views.
You saying all women are crazy is like me saying all men are violent because its in mens biology to be more aggressive.
Do you see how you used the word 'crazy' and I didn't? Do you see how I used the word 'tend' and not 'all'?
I saw the link you sent and yes its wrong for those women to be laughing about a guy getting his junk cut off.
My point wasn't only that it was just wrong. Tell me what issues your gender faces that are anywhere near as disgusting as this one? If I was to be drugged up, tied up and have my penis cut off by some cunt tomorrow, women (yes, YOUR GENDER) would be laughing, poking fun and PRAISING my violent attacker. But if a fucking woman is raped or even TOUCHED, it's the worst thing that's ever happened and the national organization of whiners would be up in arms about a panel of men laughing about it. How do you think that makes MEN feel? Do you not see the sheer inequality of that? When is violence towards your gender ever LAUGHED ABOUT on national television? When is a violent male attacker towards a female (even if the female is deserving of the violence) ever praised? It's absolutely disgusting that we have to sit here and endure this sort of garbage, yet we have to listen about how your gender has sooo many more issues when cruel/barbaric violence perpetrated against us is JUST FABULOUS. I'm going to end it right here, because the fact that I am sick to my stomach right now reillustrates why I'm an MRA in the first place and things need to change.
So women should be grateful to men because we were simply deemed not fit to work? Apparently we should have kept our mouths shut like good girls and stayed in the kitchen.
Where in the bible does it literally call men inferior? Well it says they are to remain subservient to god and the church. In the bible god gave man reign over women and all animals. Show me a quote from the bible that talks badly about all men.
Wow so fucking condescending, do you ever think feminism is but one piece of what I am as a person and that maybe I have more than one kind of injustice that makes me angry. I'm a member of our local ACORN right now the project is actually trying to get regulations on landlords that rent out slums.
Civilization would of been better if women were treated as equals instead of the wives that are there to only take care of my kids and to clean my house. I have a feeling that you are going to say basically that females input wouldn't have made a difference or made things worse which makes me wonder why I'm participating in this discussion.
Here ya go. Notice it also says there is a national movement to get boys back on track to getting better grades.
So is it ok for me to say men tend to be more violent and men tend to be rapists due to their DNA?
My point wasn't only that it was just wrong. Tell me what issues your gender faces that are anywhere near as disgusting as this one? If I was to be drugged up, tied up and have my penis cut off by some cunt tomorrow, women (yes, YOUR GENDER) would be laughing, poking fun and PRAISING my violent attacker. But if a fucking woman is raped or even TOUCHED, it's the worst thing that's ever happened and the national organization of whiners would be up in arms about a panel of men laughing about it.
I'm sorry but the internet makes rape jokes all the time. Yea praising a woman for cutting off a guys ding dong is awful behaviour and this is not what feminism should be about. Trust me next time I see such behaviour I'll speak up. Like I said I go by pure definition of what feminism means not the literature or bs just the simple fact that women and men should be treated equally and if you think that women shouldn't be treated equally then I shouldn't be talking with you.
Yes, you were not deemed fit enough to have to work yourself to chronic arthiritis and death.
I'm not going to pretend to know the bible well enough to quote it. However, in ancient far-more-religious-times, men would be KILLED for stupid silly crimes and were FORCED to be the 'breadwinners'. With rights, comes responsiblity. Just as women were FORCED (within biblical/religious text) to support their husbands, men were FORCED by the same mechanisms to PROVIDE for their wives, by any means necessary.
Well, excuse me for assuming that when you said you were too busy fighting FOR YOUR OWN GENDER to care about my genders issues, you were actually talking about non-gender specific labor laws. Maybe next time you should try not to imply such things, yeah?
No. Women's input was PARAMOUNT to civilization, people NEEDED to be raised and TAKEN CARE OF by somebody. Men and women both WORKED TOGETHER to hold down their family, especially at a time when technology wasn't ADVANCED ENOUGH to have jobs that were physically-lenient enough to ALLOW women to work as efficiently as men. Once again, instead of analyzing history, feminists just make up fantasy-utopia-stories about how if women worked life wouldn't been SOOO much easier for everybody, when in fact it probably would've hindered civilization.
Funny how feminism, which caused this initial problem with boys needing 'get better grades' by pushing hateful rhetoric about how girls are more intelligent and have more worth than them, is suddenly (supposedly) trying to help 'boys'. For every one feminist 'movement' pushing to help 'boys' in any way, there are at least 50 other ones trying to make girls exceed boys in some way. I've even read feminist literature in a common women's magazine describing how boys and girls should be SEGREGATED in schools because boys delinquence LIMITS girls potential. After reading garbage like this (and about a billion other articles VERY similar to it), I REFUSE to believe feminists are, in any way, trying to help 'boys' more than just cover their own ass when asked about their lack of empathy towards them.
Men do tend to be more violent, just as women tend to be more manipulative/vindicative. And rape depends largely on your definition of it.
I'm sorry but the internet makes rape jokes all the time.
Maybe you forgot to mention that I already stated that this was BROADCASTED on national FUCKING television. These are just the responses after Sharon 'Cunt' Osbourne was forced to make a half-assed apology for making fun of this poor man. Of course, the fucking internet has 'rape jokes', but for 1) Genital-fucking-removal is NOWHERE NEAR as severe as ANY rape imaginable, 2) Rape jokes are generally not directed at a specific person/incident, but more as a general over-the-top joke, 3) Rape jokes doesn't involve PRAISING criminal actiosn but making comedy out of them and 4)If men were sitting on a panel laughing, joking and praising a man who tore up some woman's pussy then THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN FUCKING FIRED and have their careers RUINED. Do you not get this? This isn't about 'jokes' on the internet, its about women not having to suffer consequences for anything in this god-forsaken society because there's always some excuse ready for them by feminists.
Yea praising a woman for cutting off a guys ding dong is awful behaviour and this is not what feminism should be about.
Then why don't feminist organizations, you know, SPEAK OUT about it? ALL feminist organizations shut the hell up when this shocking behavior occurred on NATIONAL TELEVISION, but oh no, some stupid milk commercial labeling the effects of PMS was DEFINITELY more important to go after, right? Feminists don't care for men, men's suffer and have ABSOLUTELY no empathy for men. If they cared in the least, they would've DONE SOMETHING about it, but they remained silent. Maybe you feminists should start judging people on their ACTIONS and not what they PROCLAIM.
Trust me next time I see such behaviour I'll speak up.
You'll probably just be told to shut up and learn how to take a joke. Violent jokes about men tend to be pretty common 'giggling ground' amongst feminists and modern women (as demonstrated by that CafeCunt website).
Like I said I go by pure definition of what feminism means not the literature or bs just the simple fact that women and men should be treated equally and if you think that women shouldn't be treated equally then I shouldn't be talking with you.
Alright, you see, this is EXACTLY what your problem is. Yes, let's go by feminism by its pure definition which feminists THEMSELVES don't FOLLOW. Are you really this dense? It's like if I was telling you to go by the 'pure definition' of the KKK movement and said all they say is that they want to "benefit individuals whom they deem as 'white'". This is actually the 'pure definition' they utilize, but that doesn't mean I'm going to judge them by this 'definition'. Their actions speaks louder than words and I could care less what they say. Do you just listen to politicians and go "Oh yeah, she said that she's doing this" and believe it 100%? OF COURSE they say that, because it makes their organization seem 'reputable' when it is a hate group just like the KKK. If you actually 'believe' feminists have actually ACTED upon their 'pure definition', then you know about as much about feminism as my pet rabbit. And nice try on shaming me with the 'treated equally' bit, you do know people have completely different definitions of 'equality', right?
What's your definition of equality then? Also I don't pay attention to feminism as a movement only as an ideal. The KKK is an movement, feminism is the ideal that men and women should be equal. So when I talk to people that are anti feminist I see it as that person being anti equality.
And rape depends largely on your definition of it.
what kind of other definition is there of rape? Having sex with someone without their consent.
I went to can all girls school in high school, there is something to be said for going to an all girls school. Some girls have a tendency to act different around guys. Without girls constantly trying to compete with one another over guys attention there is more room for actual learning and less of girls being bitches to each other. May I remind you, you are fighting with a person that just simply wants to treat each gender equally and you talking down to me and about my gender is not making a good case for your cause.
What's your definition of equality then?
It would depend on the circumstances. 300 years ago my opinion on gender 'equality' would be different than that of today. Today, I would consider gender equality to mean 'equal opportunity', which feminists are vehemently against.
Also I don't pay attention to feminism as a movement only as an ideal. The KKK is an movement, feminism is the ideal that men and women should be equal.
Feminism is definitely a movement. Just because you don't see it as such doesn't mean it isn't.
So when I talk to people that are anti feminist I see it as that person being anti equality.
Feminism is anything but equality and if they were for equality, they certainly wouldn't be called 'feminists', but something like oh.. I don't know... 'Humanists'. The name 'feminism' implies emphasis on a SINGLE gender, how can you even tell me it's for equality? Because the 'pure definition' you read on some feminist-inspired literature told you so? I've already given you NUMEROUS examples of feminists acting out of this 'pure definition' (pretty much all of the mainstream ones, actually). However, I'm sure if I mentioned the word 'masculinist' you'd get the image of a chauvinistic male wanting to 'subjugate' women.
I guess you haven't been hearing all this fuss blowing all over the 'gender issues' boards about the FBI changing the definition of rape: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
The definition of rape is very varied and feminists have worked EXTREMELY hard to have anything from an un-wanted advance to ANY drunken encounter as 'rape'. They also work VERY diligently to make up excuses for women making false rape allegations, going as far as to say 'men could benefit from a false rape claim by discovering what its like to be raped'. Yeah, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. Feminists have also stated numerous times in the past that women CANNOT rape men; that its completely impossible.
I went to can all girls school in high school, there is something to be said for going to an all girls school.
That there's a higher chance of becoming a feminist? ;)
Some girls have a tendency to act different around guys. Without girls constantly trying to compete with one another over guys attention there is more room for actual learning and less of girls being bitches to each other.
That's really funny, because last I checked... BOYS act the same way when women are present... Are you really trying to justify segregation of genders over this? Should boys and girls really not be allowed interact socially with each other because of this? This actually seems like it denigrates society by not allowing men/women to properly interact with each other until they're already adults. Social skills amongst the genders are also VERY necessary skills needed in the 'grown-up' world, much in the same way a home-schooled child generally ends up socially inadequate due to not honing in on these skills in his/her youth.
May I remind you, you are fighting with a person that just simply wants to treat each gender equally and you talking down to me and about my gender is not making a good case for your cause.
1) I'm not fighting you and if you think I am, you have every right to stop this discussion. I'm also not 'talking down to you'. This is called a 'debate'. Don't worry, this male isn't trying to 'subjugate' or 'bring you down' in any way.
2) I don't think you're some 100% batshit insane feminist, which is why I've continued this discussion. I wouldn't waste my time 'fighting' some nutter-butter feminazi.
3) You're talking about how you want gender equality, yet support a hateful group which is anything but. Most of this discussion had been on this issue and you trying to sell me on following a 'pure definition', which I 100% refuse to do so until I see ACTION behind this definition (as should ANY intellectual for that matter). Mind you, this is NOT limited to feminism, but ANY group/movement.
First off the definition is from dictionary.com. lol I went there read the definition and from that definition I concluded I was a feminist thought I did think that feminism was a very exclusionary term for equality between men and women. I don't belong to any sort of feminist group or anything like that, just read the definition and agreed with what it said. I want equal opportunity for women and men to do what they want. I don't want anyone assuming a woman is illogical on the basis that she is a woman and I don't want anyone to assume a man is a rapist or violent just because he is a man.
I guess you haven't been hearing all this fuss blowing all over the 'gender issues' boards about the FBI changing the definition of rape Wow that's terrible. I'm not from America so I dunno if our definition up here is any different.
Are you really trying to justify segregation of genders over this? Should boys and girls really not be allowed interact socially with each other because of this?
No I'm not trying to say it should be mandated but it's a good option for parents or students if they like. I for one had a much better time in my high school than I would have in the the regular schools and I felt more comfortable there because my value wasn't as much being pinned to how attractive I am to men.(In the student body not by teachers of course)
First off the definition is from dictionary.com. lol I went there read the definition and from that definition I concluded I was a feminist thought I did think that feminism was a very exclusionary term for equality between men and women. I don't belong to any sort of feminist group or anything like that, just read the definition and agreed with what it said.
Yes. I, too, utilize dictionary.com as my primary tool in determining if I support a group or not. Not by the actions of that group, but by a simple definition which the particular group has traditionally 'hid behind' as an excuse for conducting its hatred. Hell, thats how EVERYBODY should choose whether they're a part of any political party. Just ignore everything the party DOES but concentrate on a definition from an online dictionary.
I want equal opportunity for women and men to do what they want. I don't want anyone assuming a woman is illogical on the basis that she is a woman and I don't want anyone to assume a man is a rapist or violent just because he is a man.
Alright, for sakes of running in circles of the same discussions, maybe you'll better understand these points if I give you a list:
I believe women TEND to be MORE illogical THAN men, not that they are illogical. Learn the difference.
Civilization wasn't always easy enough to allow everyone to 'do what they want'. This is due to biological differences between men/women AND the fact that (mostly men) hadn't yet developed the technology to allow women to work alongside men.
I for one had a much better time in my high school than I would have in the the regular schools and I felt more comfortable there because my value wasn't as much being pinned to how attractive I am to men.(In the student body not by teachers of course)
Oh no, all those evil boys would've clearly pinned you to 'how attractive' you are to them! Clearly none of them would've treated you with respect and none of the girls would've treated the boys as such as well. You dodged quite the bullet there! Maybe its your own insecurity of how attractive you are and not that of evil boys juding you? You ever think of that? It seems to me that you can only LET boys opinions get to you, just as I can only LET girls opinions get to me. If only your above-average all-female school actually promoted READING about and OBSERVING a particular ideology rather than blindly believing it from an online dictionary, maybe it would've won some merit. Maybe.
Well I just believe men Tend to base how they treat a woman on the basis of if they want to bang them. I did spend time around guys in junior high and girls in junior high the girls will be mean to other girls to impress the guys and guys would not become friends with girls unless they wanna stick it in them. I preferred to just forgo the insanity of teenage male and female dynamics to get away from hateful treatment plus they had a choral class and my best friend at the time decided to go there for French immersion. You seem to be going at me quite aggressively right now. I don't think boys are evil just they tend to think with ya know their dicks it's not bad that they do its just what they tend to do.
Well I just believe men Tend to base how they treat a woman on the basis of if they want to bang them.
Girls do the same thing. We all have sexual desires, ya know?
You seem to be going at me quite aggressively right now.
Hardly. Maybe you don't have very thick skin?
I don't think boys are evil just they tend to think with ya know their dicks it's not bad that they do its just what they tend to do.
And women don't think with their clitoris? You honestly think teenage girls aren't biologically engineered (just like boys) to consider sexual reproduction? You ever wonder why girls choose the 'bad boys'? Girls are just as guilty, if not more so, than boys for doing this. The difference is that boys/men are blamed for this while girls/women are looked upon as victims for doing the same exact thing.
I'm not saying girls don't do the same thing. Just saying guys tend to either treat uglier girls badly or ignore them. Girls make fun of those same girls to get attention from those same guys. So I'm simply stating the fact that I'm glad I avoided that melodrama by going to an all girl school. I do have thick skin but I feel that since I'm refraining from being rude or condescending to you, maybe you might afford me the same courtesy. I do know that women do the same thing. Woman choose their mates based on how they believe that mate will provide for their offspring and how they can protect them. I don't understand why you are so against an option for girls and boys to go to separate schools if they choose so.
Just saying guys tend to either treat uglier girls badly or ignore them.
Girls are DEFINITELY no different in this regard.
Girls make fun of those same girls to get attention from those same guys.
And how is this a problem? Boys treat each other like shit and even get into physical altercations to look good in front of girls. Boys are ALWAYS competing with each other, why do girls think that all of these traits are exclusive to them?
I do have thick skin but I feel that since I'm refraining from being rude or condescending to you, maybe you might afford me the same courtesy.
I've been more sarcastic than anything and pretty darn courteous. What irks me is that its COMPLETELY acceptable for you to say something like "guys think with their dicks", but if I say men tend to be more logical due to biological factors, I'M the sexist. Whenever men say anything feminists don't like, we're sexists. But it's completely acceptable to tell men they're too stupid to not think with their genitalia, when women DO the EXACT SAME THING. And then, when I point this out, suddenly I'm a sexist again.
Woman choose their mates based on how they believe that mate will provide for their offspring and how they can protect them.
They used to before birth control was around. Since women have 100% reproductive control now, the only trait girls/young women generally choose their mates on is how much that person stimulates their clitoris. And then, when they start nearing 30, they suddenly cash in on the richest man who can 'provide for their offspring and protect them'. What a great system, eh? Now, seems pretty frivilous to blame boys for 'thinking with their dicks', doesn't it?
I don't understand why you are so against an option for girls and boys to go to separate schools if they choose so.
I'm not. It's just that you made it seem like your personal minor issues with the opposite gender was some sort of reasoning for mandating separation of school. You also made it seem like boys were hindering girls from progressing, when the same argument could be made for boys.
Btw, I just noticed how long this discussion was, probably the longest one I've had on reddit yet. Good debate :)
Yes good debate Sir. Stopped replying cause I found r/awww and been taking care of my sick bf.
Oh and if you were wondering what kind of hatred against our gender is prevalent in this sick world, here you go:
http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/forums/read/14538447/sharon_osbourn_apologized_on_the_talk_for_laughing_at_woman_cutting_mans_penis_off?next=1#replies
How well do you think this would fly if the genders were reversed? Clealry feminists are far too busy 'combating' issues to do something about this, right?
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
When was the last time there was an actual need for one? definitely pre-Korea.
[–]BinaryShadow 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Vietnam. That's if you don't include the "back-door draft" of the Iraq War.
[–]Aikidi 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
You count Vietnam as a necessity?
[–]g2petter 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think he said that, just that if you were going to fight that war, the draft was necessary.
[–]BinaryShadow 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
No. Which is why the government needed the draft to begin with.
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I don't think I follow. Doesn't an unnecessary war definitely lead to an unnecessary draft?
[–]Hamakua -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
No.
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Uhh, that isn't the case when it comes to a draft. You do have a draft because of a war.
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
What is the purpose of a draft?
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
To conscript people into the military due to a need presented by a current war.
[–]Hamakua1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
To conscript people into the military due to a need.
FTFY
What that need is is irrelevant, hence this entire branch of the thread. That you can't understand this is symptomatic of your political ideologies coloring your reason and ability to understand.
I am not saying the draft is right or wrong, my personal views are unimportant, what you are doing is assigning your personal views to the definition and function of a draft.
Can you think of any case where a draft might be necessary when there are no large conflicts?
[–]Aikidi1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What need for conscription could there possibly be other than a war that needs more bodies? At least in the case of an already established military, which the US certainly had pre-Korea.
[–]Jyrsa1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The need to maintain a large enough military for some particular purpose.
Finland, for instance has a conscript military with a core cadre of career officers and NCOs. Russia is the same with a larger hired cadre.
Russia is the reason Finland needs a conscript army with a potential size of ~7% of their population. Or at least that's what I was told when I "had the priviledge" of serving for a year there after high school.
That was my point though, the US military has had no such lack of military size other than during long quagmired wars for a loooong time.
[–]SpaceDog777 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I may be abit off with my history, but wasn't the US govt abit screwed at the time? They had just said they would help any country who wanted democracy espessially those under threat from communisum. So they either had to help the South Vietnamese fight the communists or look like they didn't help who they said they would.
Also fun fact JFK started the Vietnam war.
[–]FreddyDeus 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Actually, US troops were in Vietnam under Eisenhower. It escalated under JFK.
Fun fact!
[–]SpaceDog777 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow your right, thanks for that :)
If your interested a great documentary series about the Vietnam conflicts (Starting with the Indo-China war I think) is Vietnam: The 10,000 day war.
[–]docsquidly 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
"back-door draft" refers to the military's stop-loss policy. This prevented active duty service members from being discharged when their enlistments ended.
[–]XDingoX83 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I always hated that term. You sign up for 8 you agree to do 4 or 6 or what ever active but the contract states that they can just say screw that and make you do all 8 needs of the military style. You know what you sign up for so please stop calling it a back door draft.
[–]BinaryShadow 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It wasn't just the stop-loss policy. There were a lot of enlisted people in the navy, air force, who ended up going to Iraq to do standard Army things.
[–]XDingoX83 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yea that wa called IA or individual augmentee. I know alot of people who had to do it I was picked to go but then something changed and I did not have to go. When you sign up for the military uncle sam owns you it says so in the contract.
[–]pizzlybear 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Implies there was a need before.
[–][deleted] 60 points61 points62 points 14 years ago (204 children) | Copy Link
Who still opposes female conscription?
[–]tnw1 64 points65 points66 points 14 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
I oppose female conscription, but I also oppose male conscription. Equality shouldn't happen by dragging others down, and no one--male or female--should be forced to register for a possible draft. Instead of being angry at the freedoms/privileges each sex enjoy, people should direct their energy at removing the limitations/oppression that exist.
[–]nikocujo 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there was ever the need to reinstate a draft, I support female conscription.
That being said, I do not support women conscription in combat arms, not out of some misguided-misogyny or chivalry, but out of reason.
Within the first three weeks of Recruit Training aboard Parris Island, my platoon and I were taught to carry other recruits. In a combat zone, if I take a round or have a leg blown off, I need someone who can carry me out of the field of fire. Most women can't hump 70 pounds of gear, 8 pounds of rifle and fireman carry 170 pounds of Marine 100 yards to safety.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
Unfortunately a draft is a necessary contingency option, and equality should comport with reality, not myopic idealism.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Speaking of myopic, who believes there's no place for women on the front lines, and no other place for women in the military?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Well logistics, cost, and a smaller portion of women fit enough to do the job I imagine. Women being held to a lower fitness standard will show that a smaller portion of the women in military are fit enough to meet the higher standard of being on the front lines.
That, and there seems to be little push for women in combat infantry. There's been plenty of push for women in "glamor" combat positions like pilots, though.
[–]cercer 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
There's been plenty of push for women in "glamor" combat positions like pilots, though.
Even if we don't hire female pilots primarily, we should pretend to -- at least for operations in the Middle East. For Islamic fundamentalists, it's very demoralizing to think that suddenly, in the middle of the night, the supersonic roar and apocalyptic firebombing that fucked your shit up were done by....a woman.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Can't tell if serious...
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm not opposed to women in military, although I am opposed to the lower standard they're held to despite equal pay.
I am opposed to the idea of affirmative action in general, and especially in the military.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I Like your analogy, although I would point out that if the standard of a 4 minute mile is only required of men and not women, that standard will only serve to exclude men.
The standard-whatever it is-should be based on what's necessary for the job. If that means fewer women or fewer men can meet it, that's an unfairness that isn't due to sex discrimination, but one of biology.
On a side note, the world record for the mile run for women is around 4:15, so it's unlikely any woman would meet it.
[–]expletive-deleted 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Unfortunately a draft is a necessary contingency option
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is a social duty for a man to protect his boundaries. A man who isn't willing to take up arms to defend his community is a fucking coward. However, taking part in an act of aggression by law? Fuck that noise.
To explain more clearly, if the US was attacked and your neighborhood was invaded, if you do not relocate your responsibilities and then protect your property and community against a malevolent force, you're a piece of shit. This can get tricky, based upon political situations, but a man who has no values or fails to even attempt to stand for them commands absolutely no respect.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Ah yes, motivating people through guilt. That's what women did handing non-uniformed men white feathers to say they're cowards-even servicemembers who were civilian clothes on leave.
Look, let's say there's an attack on American soil and takes out 50, hell 90% of our armed forces. If we want to be able to defend ourselves and/or our neighbors in the ensuing war, we'd have to draft people. Hoping enough step up isn't going to cut it. The government has a job to do, and it needs boots on the ground.
Secondly, while I appreciate your sentiment towards men defending community and country, you don't seem to want to hold women to the same standard.
[–]expletive-deleted 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Ah yes, motivating people through guilt.
This is a hilarious statement. You are trying to motivate me to relax my standards of respect through the guilt of "motivating individuals through guilt".
Look, let's say there's an attack on American soil and takes out 50, hell 90% of our armed forces.
Then you should have already had a firearm and been assisting the resistance. Militias are not military, they are not drafted.
we'd have to draft people
And violate individual liberty?
you don't seem to want to hold women to the same standard.
On what basis do you possibly have to make that claim? I think you're just driven towards a specific agenda.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Forcing people to pay taxes could be considered violating personal liberty too then, but it's kind of required for the government we have. We could just say "people should just give the government a portion of their earnings without being forced to. If you don't do that you're just leeching off the government's protection".
History is replete with countries without standing armies being conquered.
I took your speech about the standards men are held to lest he be coward and your omission of women to purposeful. Perhaps I inferred incorrectly.
[–]expletive-deleted 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Forcing people to pay taxes could be considered violating personal liberty too then, but it's kind of required for the government we have.
It's kind of required for our fiscal system, and it certainly is not required for the government we have. Do not get me started on this shit.
We could just say "people should just give the government a portion of their earnings without being forced to. If you don't do that you're just leeching off the government's protection".
ಠ_ಠ
I took your speech about the standards men
Do you think men and women are exactly equal? Do you think men and women should be treated equally under law?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
They're not exactly equal, but I do think they should be treated equally under the law and socially when practicable.
[–]expletive-deleted 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
but I do think they should be treated equally under the law
A point where we agree.
and socially when practicable.
Please elaborate.
I forgot a comma, I meant when practicable both socially and legally.
As for socially, there are some things that aren't really workable, or at least currently most people aren't mature enough for. Segregated bathrooms/locker rooms, etc. It may seem ridiculous to point out, but treating each sex equally socially would imply dating or trying to to date as well as flirt with/check out both men and women, even if one isn't bisexual. There aren't many instances where it isn't practicable socially or legally, but they do exist.
As for legally, an example would abortion. Women bear 100% of the burden, and due to this they have 100% control over the fate of the fetus. This is to ensure that women aren't forced into motherhood, aren't forced to bear the physical burden. Men don't have this option, but allowing men to have a say in whether the fetus is carried to term could impinge on the mother's body autonomy. The current system allows fathers to be forced into fatherhood. An alternative would be what has become known as "financial abortion" or "legal paternal surrender". That would allow the man to abdicate both rights and responsibilities before the child is born, and personally I think it should be kept within the same time window that abortion is allowed, so the mother can make an informed decision-whether to go forward with the knowledge the father will or will not be involved. This would be example where equal treatment isn't practicable, but equal outcome can occur without unfairly treating either group.
[–]expletive-deleted1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I completely do not understand your first paragraph. I think I have a vague handle on where you're going, but you've honestly lost me.
On the second, that gets tricky for me.
What I mean is, for example, let's say a man tries to treat men and women equal socially. This would include who he hits on, who he gets undressed in front of, who he showers with, etc.
Reproductive rights is a tricky topic, no doubt.
This would include who he hits on,
What?!
That's just really silly. To take it further, a person must hit on everyone despite their attraction to them. I'm socially required to hit on ugly ignorant racist guys.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Exactly. Some forms of equality are silly or unworkable.
So what was the point?
You asked if I believed men and women should be treated equally. I said yes, when it is feasible, which I later clarified.
Is it feasible for the average woman to win a fist fight with the average man?
Just throwing punches? Unlikely.
So explain to me your expectations on women in regards to conscription, please.
In same vein as how you explained it for men. Citizens should be responsible for defend their community, regardless of gender. We are no longer in a situation where women are a reproductive priority for the sake of the species.
Some may disagree on whether the draft is necessary or not, but if we do employ one, it should not be limited to one sex or the other. As for combat, a smaller percentage of women than men would be fit enough-at least until lighter equipment is developed-but that doesn't stop them from contributing to the armed forces in other ways.
That all makes sense. However, I strongly oppose conscription unless it is a defensive effort.
[–]YesImSardonic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Look, let's say there's an attack on American soil and takes out 50, hell 90% of our armed forces
Then the war's over, moron, and the guerrilla resistance begins. Besides the stupidity of positing an invasion of the U.S., you forget the logistics--the time--it will take to train a legion of neophytes. A conventional invasion would be over before Congress finished drafting the legislation.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Odd, the attack on Pearl Harbor took out a large chunk of our Pacific Fleet for some time, and we didn't get run over by the Japanese.
Perhaps my example was too extreme, but even without a loss of personnel to disaster, typically more soldiers are needed in wartime than peacetime.
[–]YesImSardonic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Historically ignorant. They had no intent to invade.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whether we were invaded or not, it affected the Pacific Theater, and to a lesser degree the European Theater. Japan intended for it prevent the US from interfering, but that didn't work out too well.
[–]hillarysmanbag 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
US Congress
[–]GavnLogic 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago* (138 children) | Copy Link
A lot of women and feminists? They have some convenient little cop out about war being a patriarchal "institution" and all that gibberish.
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The National Organization for Women passed a resolution in 1980 opposing males-only draft registration as discriminatory. The American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project provided aid to the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg, in which the plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged males-only draft registration.
[–]GavnLogic -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
30 years ago, a feminist did something.
Yeah and?
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court found that it was constitutional to discriminate based on sex for the draft, so the issue can't be pushed through the courts. The issue has been brought up periodically in the Executive Branch (Clinton asked the military to study the issue; the military offered a resounding "no") and Congress (Congress won't act because expanding the draft in any way is going to be astoundingly unpopular). Considering no one has been drafted in over 30 years, it's hardly a pressing issue to work on.
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I never said it was a pressing issue to work on.
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points 14 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link
I've never heard "men should have to go to serve in the military but not women".
[–]GavnLogic 52 points53 points54 points 14 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link
There are de facto laws against female conscription and females being sent into combat. Know many feminists trying to equalize that playing field? No? Thanks for playing.
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Actually, a lot of women--not all feminists of course, probably not even most mainstream feminists--have been fighting for military rights for decades. They weren't allowed to serve until the seventies, weren't allowed to be in danger zones til much later, and military women are still fighting to be allowed to serve on front lines. It's only recently they were allowed to be combat pilots. It's still a contentious issue.
[–]royboh 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women have been combat pilots, around the globe and in the US, since World War One. There were also many, many women who worked in military hospitals and logistics facilities over the years. While not strictly soldiers, they still served in the military.
[–]NiceGuysSTFU -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And you were downvoted...for stating the obvious. Have an upvote.
[–]KingNick -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
He point still remains: Hillary Clinton is a dumb bitch.
[+]GavnLogic -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"A lot of women." lol
[–]blow_hard 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
There are plenty of feminists who are also pacifists that argue for the abolishment of all conscription. Very few are arguing for adding women to the draft, but I've heard the idea proposed. It's hardly surprising that this is an unpopular idea, though. No one likes the idea of being sent to war against their will.
[–]KingNick 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No one likes the idea, no; but if anyone should go...it should be Men, not Ladies...right?! /s
[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No, I don't think anyone should be drafted, ever. I think it's a pretty basic violation of human rights to force someone to go to war. If you can't find enough people willing to volunteer for your cause, it's probably not worth fighting.
Anyway, what efforts have men's rights movement undertaken to end the draft that the feminist movement haven't?
[–]semperverus -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You missed the end-sarcasm tag he put there. "/s" = "end-sarcasm"
[–]GavnLogic -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Cop out.
[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Um, no, I'm going to call your two word comment a 'cop out.' Face it, women are doing just as much to equalize the draft as men are (which amounts to about nothing on both sides). No one really has done anything to be proud of with regards to this cause, but why should you expect others to help you if you're not trying very hard to help yourselves?
[–]GavnLogic 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I've heard multitudes more MRA's discuss the draft issue than feminists. And despite what you may think, talking about something is "doing something" - it's called raising awareness. When I go to feminist blogs, I read such silly drivel about female body image, how men objectify women, bla bla bla. MRA blogs routinely discuss things such as draft
When feminists do talk about the draft, it's usually some COP OUT comment like the one you just made, trying to come up with some reason to moot the issue and weasel out discussing sexist draft laws. Rather than equalize draft laws, feminists would rather just abolish the draft to begin with. But they don't want to abolish the draft to benefit men - they want to abolish the draft so women won't be drafted. Instead of presenting-center and having an iota of accountability over the issue, it's always "well, we shouldn't have draft laws in the first place..." or "war is bad" or "war is TEH PATRIARKIE!" or other such nonsensical cop out drivel.
[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I've heard multitudes more MRA's discuss the draft issue than feminists.
Confirmation bias. Do you really hunt through feminist blogs and spend as much time reading them as MRA blogs? Based on the fact that you seem to think women don't care about the draft, I'm going to have to say obviously not. MRA blogs routinely discuss the draft because it's one of the few issues they've got they people will actually sympathize with them on. Very few people will admit to liking or supporting the draft, after all.
You don't seem to understand that abolishing the draft WOULD equalize the draft laws, because then both genders would have the same chance of being drafted: zero. The fact that you think that women want to abolish the draft so that they won't be drafted is utterly absurd, the height of ignorance, and shows that you lack even basic understanding of the feminist platform. Women already face zero chance of being drafted, because that's how the law is right now and virtually no one is campaigning to subject women to the draft. Women aren't worried about being drafted.
There is already very strong opposition to the draft, there has been since the Vietnam war, when it was incredibly unpopular. The way things are going, there is a lot more public support for ending the draft than there is for extending it, or widening it. That's the way things are. Knowing that, obviously if you truly want to have a chance at equalizing things, you should aim to end the draft for everyone. It's not a cop out, it's the most realistic solution to the problem, and the one that is most likely to come about.
Yes, the draft laws are sexist, and the draft is also horrible which is why we should end it. "Rather than equalize draft laws, feminists would rather just abolish the draft to begin with." Abolishing the draft would equalize draft laws. If neither men nor women can be drafted, that seems pretty equal to me.
[–]GavnLogic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Confirmation bias. Do you really hunt through feminist blogs and spend as much time reading them as MRA blogs?
Assumption. I spend more time reading feminist blogs than I do MRA material. Why? Because how can I refute feminist drivel unless I first read it?
Based on the fact that you seem to think women don't care about the draft, I'm going to have to say obviously not.
Your statement here is based on an unproven premise, ie that women/feminists care about the draft.
Very few people will admit to liking or supporting the draft, after all.
I'm going to keep this here because I'll need to bring it back in a second:
You don't seem to understand that abolishing the draft WOULD equalize the draft laws, because then both genders would have the same chance of being drafted: zero.
Yes, however, the draft isn't going anywhere soon, and isn't likely to be abolished in the near future. It's here to stay. The fact that Congress would have almost unanimous support from the population if they abolished the draft, yet still haven't, indicates that it's in place due to a necessity. Just like taxes.
The fact that you think that women want to abolish the draft so that they won't be drafted is utterly absurd, the height of ignorance, and shows that you lack even basic understanding of the feminist platform. [Emphasize mine]
So what you're saying with all them fancy words there is: Women want to be drafted?
Women already face zero chance of being drafted, because that's how the law is right now and virtually no one is campaigning to subject women to the draft. Women aren't worried about being drafted.
Exaaaaaactly my pooooinnntttt. -knocks on your head- Anyone hooommmeee? Women face zero chance of being drafted. Is it any wonder they're not really campaigning all that hard to instate 50/50 practices or even to abolish the draft altogether? I mean granted, you can find a few token statements by feminists, but what sort of attention are they really giving the issue?
There is already very strong opposition to the draft, there has been since the Vietnam war, when it was incredibly unpopular. The way things are going, there is a lot more public support for ending the draft than there is for extending it, or widening it. That's the way things are. Knowing that, obviously if you truly want to have a chance at equalizing things, you should aim to end the draft for everyone. It's not a cop out, it's the most realistic solution to the problem, and the one that is most likely to come about. Yes, the draft laws are sexist, and the draft is also horrible which is why we should end it. "Rather than equalize draft laws, feminists would rather just abolish the draft to begin with." Abolishing the draft would equalize draft laws. If neither men nor women can be drafted, that seems pretty equal to me.
As I already pointed out: Despite such an unpopular opinion amongst the populace, the draft isn't going anywhere soon. Thus, the position of "equality through establishment" is a moral cop out because, either way, women stand no risk of being drafted. It is a gynoprotectorate position, much like all of feminism.
[–]blow_hard1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You've done a great job of missing all my points, I'm not going to bother talking to you if you're going to purposefully misrepresent what I say.
That said, I'm going to make just one clarification, because there's one point I could have worded better. When you got confused here:
The fact that you think that women want to abolish the draft so that they won't be drafted is utterly absurd, the height of ignorance, and shows that you lack even basic understanding of the feminist platform. [Emphasize mine] So what you're saying with all them fancy words there is: Women want to be drafted?
No, what I was saying was that the reason women want to abolish the draft isn't because they're worried they might someday be drafted; the reason (most) women are against the draft and want to abolish it is because they think it's wrong and unfair. It's not, 'oh no, we might get drafted someday, we should do something about that!' it's hey, war sucks, no one should be forced into it, regardless of their gender.
Other than that you're being purposefully obtuse and combative and don't seem willing to have a constructive discussion.
For example, how can you say this
Which has been proven by many others (including me, for example) in this very thread- I know someone else already posted this, which is the National Organization for Women's condemnation of the draft.
If we're going to talk about unproven assumptions, your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption that the draft isn't going anywhere, which you haven't bothered to prove in any way.
[–]GavnLogic1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is ironic because you won't even address any of my points.
Translation: "You don't agree with me, so you're just a bad person! And you're dumb! Neener neener!"
Which has been proven by many others (including me, for example) in this very thread- I know someone else already posted this[link removed], which is the National Organization for Women's condemnation of the draft.
Yeah, in 1971 during the whole "anti-war trend", NOW made some token statements about the draft. You've sure presented a strong case there. <-- That was sarcasm, BTW.
If we're going to talk about unproven assumptions, your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption that the draft isn't going anywhere
Excuse me - but I thought you had a problem with people misrepresenting what other people say? I said the draft "isn't going anywhere, soon." I never said "the draft isn't going anywhere, period".
You can have the last word and posture if it makes you feel better. I won't debate with someone who doesn't have the intellectual spine to hold themselves to their own standards.
[–]blow_hard0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'll give you one last chance to make your point- you give me an example of some sort of progress the Men's Rights movement has made towards ending the draft (or getting women in the draft, whichever you want) that women/feminists haven't done, and I might actually believe that you have a leg to stand on here.
[–]superiority 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
So if I'm opposed to military conscription and in favour of equal rights for men and women, you think that what I should be doing is:
Try to change the law so that women aren't excluded from selective service.
After this is done, then try to abolish selective service altogether.
Have I got that right?
[–]GavnLogic -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Because you can't stand for both. /s
[–]superiority 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Can't stand for both the expansion and abolition of selective service registration? Sounds about right to me.
[–]GavnLogic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Either abolish conscription, or make it 50/50. If we can't abolish it, it should be 50/50." Can't wrap your mind around that?
[–]Ballsey 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
In the Army many women consider it an unfair advantage that they are not allowed in the infantry. Where do you think a majority of generals come from? Combat arms. It's a huge disadvantage to be female in the military.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Falsum2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[citation needed]
[–]KingNick 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Tick the box? Could you let a Brother know what this term means?
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So they're mad because they can't be generals, not because they can't be sent into combat. QQ.
[–]N8theGr8 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Just as an FYI, if a thing exists because of laws, it exists de jure. If it exists for another reason, it is de facto.
Edit: spelling
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
de jure*
[–]N8theGr8 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I looked it up, and you're right. I took Latin almost 10 years ago, so I guess I mis-remembered that.
[–]blakkadder -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
To pretend that there are no women or feminists that oppose the draft is the height of willful ignorance.
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Good thing I never actually said that.
[–]blakkadder 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Are you serious? That is exactly what you said. "Know many feminists trying to equalize that playing field? No?" Is saying that there aren't any feminists out there who oppose the draft, which is just straight up wrong. There are even women who support the female draft, though understandably it's not a popular opinion.
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That is exactly what you said. "Know many feminists trying to equalize that playing field? No?" Is saying that there aren't any feminists out there who oppose the draft
Actually, that is not "exactly" what I said and your statement even quotes me not "exactly" saying that! Good job!
understandably it's not a popular opinion.
That was my entire point.
[–]blakkadder 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So, you do think that there are feminists who oppose the draft? Is that what you're trying to say? You seem kind of confused
[–]GavnLogic -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You seem to be having trouble interpreting what I said.
[–]youseeah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Um.... yes, you did. Or do you actually think that there are women out there who oppose the draft? If so then your previous point seems pretty contradictory.
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You actually missed my point. I never denied that women/feminists opposed the draft... actually that's the problem: Rather than opposing sexist conscription practices, they just moot the issue (cop out) by opposing the draft/war altogether.
Opposing the draft/opposing war sound nice and all, but in the end they are just a convenient little cop out to avoid addressing sexist conscription practices.
[–]youseeah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So you don't think ending the draft is possible, or do you not think that ending the draft would equalize things?
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Because everyone should oppose the draft. Don't you oppose the draft? How bitter would you have to be to want more people conscripted rather than less?
[–]bikemaul 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There would not have to be more people involved, just equal mandated burden. When only a subset of society is forced to labor and die, unjust wars would have less pressure to end, leading to more death and destruction.
It's human nature to ignore injustice when you are in an exempt class.
If whites were enslaved along side blacks in the US I believe slavery would have ended sooner.
[–]KingNick 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The Draft exists because it has to exist.
[–]GavnLogic 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And that^ is exactly the sort of cop out you hear from feminists on the issue of the draft.
[–]SchrodingersRapist 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link
In fact no one should oppose the draft. Oppose the politicians who institute it for "police actions" and not when a country is under a real threat. It is meant to be an "Oh shit we need manpower" option in times of crisis(Read: War, Invasion, Natural disasters on a scale we haven't ever seen, etc.) and not what it was used for in Vietnam and Korea.
At the moment it would take quite a lot to even have the draft activated, but in the event of say a military attempt at invasion, why are only men's names above the age of 18 on the list? If there was any intent to truly make the sexes equal shouldn't we start with whom will defend the country in a time of war and who is allowed to be on the front lines after volunteering for service?
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link
The basic idea here is that you're not sexist unless you think one gender should be drafted and the other should not. I can't speak for every feminist, but I'm of the opinion that as things currently stand in America it is pretty ridiculous that we have a list of people the government can legally force to go to war on a whim. There should be a significant barrier, possibly even the passing of a constitutional amendment, that would require people to acknowledge that it was truly necessary to force people to go to war.
In places like South Korea where compulsory service might actually be a good idea then yeah, it should be extended to women.
And for the record, NOW has long acknowledged the unfairness of the draft towards men. You may object to some of their other reasons, but the fourth point there is clearly sympathizing with men.
Edit due to post timer: @notcaptainkirk: it would be hard to justify going through the process of drafting women just to make it easier to stop drafting anyone. Just skip the first step and get rid of it all at once.
@bikemaul: no burden is necessary right now. We have a lot of voluntary soldiers and a lot of death robots to do our police work right now. If we ever got invaded by aliens we could change the laws then.
[–]AryoBarzan 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link
Rofl at the NOW link blaming the problems with War as females being 'degraded' by being called 'sexist slurs'. Oh no, the poor wimminz! Hopefully their cries will fade out the deaths of the numerous men dying each year in the military. There is a reason why I say I support the MEN in the military and not the women. How can anybody take this feminist meandering seriously?
Edit: Oh, you're a SRS poster. Explains the idiocy and female supremacy.
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link
eliminating the draft female supremacy
In case anyone was curious about what MRA's actually believe, this is it. This is what men's rights advocates literally, unironically believe. It's almost beyond parody.
[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Yup, definitely parody. Which is why your little shit-fest of a subreddit has what? 11,000 whiners, like yourself? Really close to that number up there on the far right corner, is it? :)
As far as that post, I'm sure you'd be all too familiar with it considering it's a SRS downvote job. Since the pussies over at SRS like yourself know nobody takes any of your posts seriously, you have to go onto OTHER subreddits and troll them with your illogical, whiney rhetoric. You noticed how nobody has banned you yet? Because we encourage reasonable debate, not automatic cry-baby banning and pussy-footing downvoting. Now go back to SRS where people are actually cowardly and stupid enough take you seriously.
[–][deleted]-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
hahaha look at all them words
but nah, I just dug through your post history a bit
Here's one where you say the majority of rape victims are lying. Typical mra.
[–]AryoBarzan6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah they are which, a fine pussy-footer like yourself would know nothing about since intellectual debate is clearly nowhere near a priority on your joke of a subreddit.
The fact that you are stupid enough to somehow take what I said in that post to imply that I said 'the majority of rape victims are lying' shows how much of a delusional SRS poster you are.
The gynoversities are the largest centers for misandry anywhere on this planet. Let's help fight off the vermin.
Yes, rally the troops against the evils of higher education, and the female supremacy of eliminating the draft! Teach the women they were better off before they could vote! This is what MRAs actually believe!
And with that I think I'm going to bed. Peace out, nerd.
[–]AryoBarzan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Oh man, you're getting really desperate with nit-picking all over my post history. You scared the MRA's are actually getting somewhere, puss-boy? Is that why you spend so much time here and regurgitating "THIS IS WHAT MRAS ACTUALLY BELIVE!!1111" as if anybody here is listening to you? But its okay, go off to bed where, like that subreddit full of pencil-necked manginas and bigoted feminists, you can sleep sound of any reason or thought :)
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
full of pencil-necked manginas and bigoted feminists
Ahh yes, name-calling is the cornerstone of any sound argument :)
Arguing with SRS posters is about as useful as arguing with your ant farm. You'd know that had you actually been around here long enough and spent more time reading and less time snooping through peoples post history :)
I wasn't arguing. It was a statement. Lol.
I was referring to WHY I didn't argue with the SRS poster but instead, called him out for what he and his league of dipshits are, obviously. You really don't have the greatest reading comprehension skills, do you? Really confirms the last debate we had, doesn't it? :)
Lol after our last debate in which you admitted being wrong about your original argument? The one where you continuously attacked staw men? The one where you tried to make out that I was being sexist and was then completely shown up by me simply copying and pasting what I had ACTUALLY said to prove that you were incapable of understanding what had been written? Sure thing sweetie :)
Its funny because you always resort to straw men and name-calling and seem to think that you are outwitting people by doing this LOL!
Oh are you still butt-hurt about our last debate, sweet-cheeks? I'm sorry. Is that why you were sorting through my post history to find another thing to argue about since you couldn't continue our debate? It's alright, I've clearly called you SOO many names (can't think any off the top of my head, but I'm sure they're there!) and created SOO many strawmen (which most people don't think are, for some strange reason) that there's obviously no reason to debate with me, right?
Well looks like you've clearly out-witted a dumb peanut-brain-sized male like myself :)
OK I actually don't want to argue with you but I just need to point out to you that on the thread about the genital mutilation of males and females I was actually agreeing with the OP. I have said several times in that thread that I agreed that male genital mutilation is equally as morally vile as female and should be treated as such.
I have infact argued against male genital mutilation in other threads too. I have also discouraged people from choosing this option in my job as a paediatric nurse. Believe me, I know how fucked up male genital mutilation is.
You had no reason at all to say that ''The only people undermining genital mutilation are the ones justifying it by saying 'it's not as bad as x', like yourself.'' No right whatsoever. Just because I had pointed out that your comment about male and female genitals was infact incorrect you seemed to have decided that I was sexist towards men and for male genital mutilation. You should have actually read what I'd written and thought about it before stereotyping. I was here to argue FOR men's rights but you were too ignorant to realise that.
The reason I hadn't called you names and stayed VERY civil with you is because I can tell that you are actually here, to some degree, for men's issues and not some troll like the SRS poster above. I refuse to call MRA or MRA supporters (even to a small degree) names or insult them in any manner due to the fact that I ALWAYS have some hightened level of respect towards them, even if I don't 100% agree with them.
I will also give you a big thank you for your good deeds as a paediatric nurse. I feel homocidal everytime I see some woman telling parents lies about MGM and then going on to cut up the poor boy with a nice happy smile on her face. Just the thought of it now makes me sick to my stomach.
I did not say (nor imply) that you are for MGM or sexist against men. You probably wouldn't be here if you were one of those two, let alone both. Which is why, as addressed earlier, I remained civil with you. I don't believe I am anywhere near incorrect on my MGM/FGM stats, but I do think that we don't share the same definitions of 'common' and other such words that got in the way of our argument.
Either way, agree to disagree? Extends Hand
Well I apologise if my arguments came across the wrong way to you. A case was being put forward about something that I wholeheartedly believe in and I wanted to make sure that people stuck to facts with what they were saying otherwise it makes the whole case for MGM seem less credible. Lets face it MGM and FGM are both so incredibly vile we have no need to steer away from the facts of the matters when trying to show that they are wrong.
I will agree to disagree with you although I think we probably agree on the issue that mattered most.
:)
[–][deleted]6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You are fucking hilarious. You completely ignored everything in the post you replied to and instead just dug through his posting history to look for something you can attack. Desperate and pathetic.
[–][deleted]-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
He said the same MRA shit in the same incoherent way. He was also attacking NOW, which I have no interest in defending.
And it was like 4 AM, give me a fucking break.
[–]SchrodingersRapist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
I'm not going to argue with you about forcing someone to go to war, or explain to you what huddles are already in place before re-instituting a draft. Suffice to say though, since you believe
America it is pretty ridiculous that we have a list of people the government can legally force to go to war on a whim
you should go read up on what a draft actually is first. A whim hardly is sufficient grounds, and completely inaccurate.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
you should go read up on what a draft actually is first.
...good point.
With that said, apparently it just requires approval of the president and congress. Which is about what I thought. Point is you can achieve equality either by making more people sign up for selective service or by scrapping the whole thing. The latter seems both more ethical and probably more politically viable.
[–]SchrodingersRapist 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Which is only short your amendment qualifier by subtracting the president and adding a senate vote, and then a state vote. Which all take time to even setup, and may not even be possible in the event of an invasion or first strike scenario(especially if EMPs were used which is likely any advanced armies first action to knock out communication lines and cause disarray).
I prefer having everyone sign up, it's the fair way of keeping a list of able bodied Americans. It would save time if shit ever hit the fan so to speak, if we ever have another Pearl Harbor. Instead of your suggestion by passing a new amendment, having everyone sign up for a new draft, and still having people dead set on not fighting fleeing the country or dodging it anyway. Furthermore, this isn't the 60's anymore. The backlash from anything less than being invaded would be enormous. Likely instituting a draft that a majority of the populous didn't agree with the cause for would just end with people not serving, protests, and probably violent riots in many major cities.
Why don't we just talk fairness and women can push to have it required they sign up instead of pointing to outdated(assuming a couple of those ever were true) aspects posted in the 70s from NOW and ignoring that those things that happen to both sides. I would totally be behind women serving an equal role in the military (including front line work, pay, rank, etc.) in response to the #4 on that list as well.
Which is only short your amendment qualifier by subtracting the president and adding a senate vote.
And, you know, 3/4 of the states.
The backlash from anything less than being invaded would be enormous. Likely instituting a draft that a majority of the populous didn't agree with the cause for would just end with people not serving, protests, and probably violent riots in many major cities.
True, but would that be any better? Looting, soldiers against rioters, and if you think the right vs. left division in this country is bad now...
Why don't we just talk fairness and women can push to have it required they sign up
Between antiwar liberals, antifeminist conservatives, and people who just plain don't want to sign up for the draft, I can't see it happening. Not to mention that it's the wrong way to solve the problem.
Edit:
Which all take time to even setup, and may not even be possible in the event of an invasion or first strike scenario
I am less worried that we will need a draft at a moment's notice than I am about an unjustified draft. Some may disagree. Some of those people will not understand how utterly dominant the US military is right now.
[–]SchrodingersRapist3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
2/3rds Houses at the start and 3/4ths the states, I am well aware. I'm going to stick to my assumptions about the time all of that would take at a minimum in the event of an emergency, when time and lives matter.
In fact that would be worse. Which is the threat under which to ensure that it would never happen on a whim, and only for something seriously warranting it.
You're right, thankfully there are two ways I see around this problem.
One is that we are a republic and a majority should still rule so long as it comes down to a vote.
The second, and I particularly like this one better, make the draft optional for EVERYONE able(not counting the obvious disabled, unable, or such). Those that aren't willing to be drafted and defend the country in the event of invasion, fight in the event of a world war scale outbreak of violence for their fellow person, or be drafted to render aid to their fellows in the event of a severe natural emergency are not allowed to own property(Read: Land) or gain aid from government programs/assistance of any kind. People wouldn't have to fight for any cause they didn't agree with, and wouldn't be barred from renting a place to live, employment, or medical services, but would not gain all the benefits of being a citizen in a place they are unwilling to defend or assist in a crisis. It could be setup something akin to some failure to render aid laws.
The second, and I particularly like this one better, make the draft optional for EVERYONE able(not counting the obvious disabled, unable, or such).
I fail to see how "everyone register or you're a second class citizen" would be much more popular than "women register or you go to jail". It would also lead to weird incentives where people want to move back in with their parents to dodge the draft.
Also, see my edit. Our current military spending equals that of the next 14 countries combined. Our navy is comparable to those of every other country combined. We have the best technology in every area and one of the largest armies. Assuming the threat of an invasion would prompt more volunteers, what more could we need?
Edit: also, 10,000 nukes
[–]notcaptainkirk 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I want people conscripted EQUALLY, so then more people have something to lose and therefore more people to oppose conscription.
[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there's a draft, there's a damn good reason for one... like the enemy will soon be taking your freedom.
(Not oil)
If society didn't force men to get up and fight, the enemy will have occupied a country before anyone could be prepared.
EVERYONE should fight. =)
But the stats don't lie - a woman can replace a man lost to combat with a child or two. A man can't replace a women lost in combat.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
They usually say "no one should be conscripted", although I've seen little action on their advocacy group's part to change that.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's because you don't want to see it. You're willfully ignorant of anything that would challenge your preconceived notions of the world.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I could just be ignorant. I am actually okay with being wrong, because then I learn something.
Besides, I don't want to see "no one gets conscripted". Conscription is a necessary contingency option, and it should be applied equally.
[–]blow_hard -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yep, you're just ignorant. Many feminist organizations have condemned the draft, NOW is one example. They even say that one of the reasons they oppose it is because "men themselves are subject to loss of life and personhood by being subject to compulsory military service from which women are exempt"
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Interesting. Although to be fair what you linked indicates that 40 years ago they opposed the double standard, not the existence of the draft.
[–]blow_hard 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I suppose I should have been more precise and said they oppose a facet of the draft, or they oppose the draft the way it is now. They still hold this position.
[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Yea, and they ignore the fact that sometimes wars need to be fought.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Wars can be fought with an all-volunteer army. The US has been doing it for over 30 years.
[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Some wars can be fought with an all volunteer army. The US has not faced a war of the scope of WWII since WWII. You could say that in our more enlightened and technologically advanced age that the draft is not needed, but the fact is that the draft was needed in WWII, and men were forced to die for their country. To claim that men were the privileged throughout history when they were forced to die is highly suspect.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
If they could they wouldn't have had to use the stop-loss provision to keep soldiers in the field past the end of their enlistment date during our last two "conflicts".
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Why don't we just stop getting involved in unnecessary wars? It can be done. We have nukes. Nukes are the greatest preventer of wars ever invented. Libya shows that massive amounts of soldiers aren't actually needed.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'd prefer no war, but we're not there in our evolution yet. And, I'd rather have people fighting than using nukes ... pretty much ever.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Ah, see I don't endorse the use of nukes. I endorse mutually assured destruction preventing anyone from using nukes. I think any country that can properly secure their nukes should have them.
[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Oh, guess I missed your point. It seemed you were endorsing the use of nukes which to me is just insane.
It's true we don't need them at the moment, but the draft is for a massive war that we would have to have people to avoid using those kind of weapons. The problem is that the world is still not stable and people see profit in war, so it's impossible to know what, when, where, or why of the next massive war (if it happens).
I just don't see a massive war anywhere on the horizon. The countries that can afford it know better. I'd like to think that if such a massive war happened, that people would sign up to defend the country. I think drafting people that do not have the will to fight is counterproductive to the war effort.
Sanity has never been a defining human trait =)
[–]srshk213 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In Australia women can serve in the military but are not allowed to take part in combat. Apparently this is going to change by 2016.
[–]BinaryShadow 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Or they just give lip service about ending the draft altogether (but don't do anything to help that movement).
[–]blow_hard 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
What has the men's rights movement done to help the movement?
[–]YesImSardonic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Been mocked and scoffed at and compared to 'white rights'.
[–]blow_hard -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
So, nothing, just as I thought.
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's kind of difficult to get any political momentum when you're being misrepresented and not taken seriously by existing political entities.
[–]blow_hard -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why do you think it is that people don't take you seriously?
[–]Lecks 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Misrepresentation, emotional investment in frequently discussed topics concerning gender (MRA's aswell as the opposition) and a focus on outspoken fringe subsets.
[–]blow_hard 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The thing is almost every social movement has these things. The media loves to focus on outspoken fringes (extremists, if you will) when it comes to pretty much everything. Movements are also misrepresented all the time- this happened a lot with the gay rights movement (and still does, especially when it comes to trans people). And I think just about everybody is emotionally invested in the causes they support, it's usually why people support them in the first place.
No, those were pretty generic hindrances that are hardly unique to the men's rights movement. So I guess my next question would be why do you think those things hold back the MR movement more than they do for any other?
[–]Lecks1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My guess would be the notion that men are both priviledged and expected to deal with hardships, rather than strive to alleviate them. It's not uncommon for men who discuss men's rights issues to be mocked or even berated simply for acknowledging that we face discrimination or that certain issues affect men and women equally or are even disprotionately worse for men.
There seems to be a general sentiment that we bring these things on ourselves, typically because of the belief there is some overarching structure that favours men but that we fail it's expectations on an individual level and are therefore punished for it.
When the majority of the populace is taught that men have always been the ones in power then it becomes very difficult to convince anyone that men have genuine struggles. After all, if we hold all the power then whatever problems we have must be comparitively trivial to what women face.
The first hurdle an MRA has to overcome is his percieved position of power and priviledge.
[–]throwaway6237 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
Anyone remember that thread a few weeks ago (in another sub) where some guy was trying to say that the Draft was misogynistic?
His stance was the it implied women were the weaker sex, so they couldn't be trusted to do the fighting. Or some bullshit.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The draft could be viewed as misogynistic, but then it would also qualify as misandric. The difference is that the misandric part leads to early death, while the misogynistic part keeps women from harm.
[–]Stuartc084 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This the best description of the USA's draft I have ever heard.
[–]KilliamWallace 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Serious question: If not for that reason then why is the draft only male? That's why woman aren't allowed on the front lines of war right?
[–]marswithrings 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Actually, woman aren't allowed in direct combat because a country (I believe Israel) once tried allowing it, and found that male soldiers frequently endeavored in over-heroics in the presence of female soldiers.
By this I mean, they were jumping in front of the women to take bullets, or jumping on top of grenades, etc - which is not independently bad, but it was done to the extent that many of them were prioritizing protecting the women over of the primary mission objective.
Additionally, men who did not partake in what I've called the over-heroics, but instead witnessed women being blown to bloody bits, suffered severe psychological trauma.
Gender roles built into us by society may indeed be the problem, but they have been ingrained in us so deeply that they can legitimately interfere with direct combat, and not for those physical reasons everyone assumes.
[–]smischmal 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If women didn't suffer from analogous deficiencies, then why would they not then bar men from front line military service instead? Seems to me that there must be an additional reason on top of that that they chose men over women to be the sole sex allowed in combat.
[–]marswithrings 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The assumed male physical superiority is probably the origin of the tradition that war is fought by men, but we could trace that back to the beginning of recorded history. I think the physical differences caused gender roles to be defined the way they currently are, and I think the current definitions are what caused the problems I described in my previous comment.
So in a way, I agree with you, I've just been told that the 'official' reason the draft only picks up men is because of what happened to Israel. But ultimately, society would need to address gender roles and the reasoning behind them to make significant progress on this front.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do you have a source for this by any chance. Not doubting you, it's interesting if true.
[–]marswithrings 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I actually learned this from school, not the web (for once in my life), so I don't have a link handy. A few minutes of searching yielded this - it's not as detailed as my previous comment, but does support what I said. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to find more if you're interested in the subject, but I don't have time to do an extensive search myself. xD
According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and aggression after seeing a woman wounded. Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers, lessening the IDF's ability to interrogate prisoners. On the other hand, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians. Children and women are more likely to talk to female soldiers than to male soldiers.
sauce
That's a pretty good citation! Appreciate it.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The legal reason is that the draft is for combat soldiers, and since women aren't really put into combat it doesn't apply to them.
[–]TheRadBaron 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Same reason it's "women and children first", even though there isn't a huge gap in ability to survive a shipwreck. People get more sad about women dying.
[–]KilliamWallace 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I can agree with that, but I kind of see it as a combination of both answers. I see woman as being equal mentally but the physical ability of most woman is weaker than their male peers which may be a fairly good reason why the confidence wasn't fully there for a female draft. Especially considering the way we fought war up through Vietnam.
[–]TheRadBaron 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Oh yeah, the gap in physical ability definitely used to be a solid explanation.
It just doesn't hold up so much nowadays, because of guns and such. There are plenty of cases where strength helps, but on the other hand women are smaller targets (and weigh less, and take up less food/space), so it roughly evens out.
[–]KilliamWallace 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Yes I completely agree. I never thought about the food consumption issues either. Side note: the US navy just recently put the first female submarine officers onto several Ohio class submarines so they are at least making some good headway in that aspect of the military.
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, until that Sub has to return early from a deployment due to a pregnancy....
[–]KilliamWallace 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
As a US sailor that was out to sea on an Ohio class submarine with 8 female midshipman last fall; I can verify that no one was stupid enough to hook up with any of them till return to port.
[–]eberkimer2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Also a former sailor (not on an Ohio class however), here's the problem I see. You are 2 weeks from a deployment, and one of those women learns she's pregnant, and they don't allow her to go on the deployment. Is 2 weeks enough time to get someone new in that spot and trained? Operational readiness should come before all else.
EDIT: Spelling
[–]KilliamWallace3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How bad of an actual problem is this? This subject always comes up in training we receive about integrating women and we are led to believe that the only women who do this are the same as the degenerates that would dodge an underway in the male population.
[–]Demonspawn3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How bad of an actual problem is this?
It's a problem, and one of those that are almost never talked about (because it's too politically incorrect [PDF]).
Some deploying units reported that non-deployable rates for pregnancy among women were as much as 30% of those assigned.
Consider the ''pregnant-Navy syndrome.''
In this phenomenon a woman benefits from the Navy's technical training and then, just prior to her ship's being deployed, becomes pregnant so as to qualify for shore leave and not be deployed.
Or she becomes pregnant immediately after her ship is deployed, thus allowing her to shirk responsibilities, forcing her shipmates to pick up the slack.
In ''Women in Ships: Can We Survive?'' published in Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, in July 1987, Lt. Roberta Spillaine wrote of an experience aboard the USS Acadia: ''One West Coast based tender reported that more than 40 percent of her female non-rated seamen became pregnant during work-up for deployment - and no replacements were authorized.''
[–]KilliamWallace2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Wow political correctedness is ruining a lot of society. It has become a real get out of responsibility pass. Thank you for the reference.
[–]eberkimer3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But women who find themselves pregnant, don't find themselves up on any kind of charges (typically), the way that men will (typically). Missing a movment, dereliction of duty, etc.
Very valid point. It's just instant shore duty when they get pregnant.
[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Personally - I'm the most sad about ME dying.
[–]BrendanFraser 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I so agree. I'll admit I'm a coward.
[–]radamanthine 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men are seen as more disposable by society.
[–]blow_hard 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wasn't that true in historical times, though? By and large, the people in charge of raising armies (and most people in society for that matter) didn't see women as fit for combat because they were thought to be unable to handle themselves in a war zone, emotionally or physically.
[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Did he mean it or was he trying to turn the tables on someone else that was talking about misogyny?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It was me and I meant it.
That's reverse psychology, dude.
Shame them into wanting to go.
[–]NiceGuysSTFU 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think you are full of shit.
[–]Metaphoricalsimile -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you conveniently ignoring the MR posters in this very thread who are against female conscription on the grounds that women are less capable of being good combat officers than men?
What about high-ranking officers in the military who still oppose women in combat?
[–]boss1000 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seriously. Any respectable feminist that's worth paying attention to already agrees with equality of the draft. This is such a non-issue.
[+]xebo -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
I do. If women took part in any of the WW's, our population would still be recovering.
From a biological stand point, the size of our population is effected much more by women than men. As such, we should place a premium on their lives.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
If you start accepting that its okay to differentiate between the sexes based on biological differences, you open a huge can of worms leading to institutionalized sexism.
[+]xebo -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
I'm not thinking about politics; I'm thinking about biology. You can maintain roughly the same population if men die, but not if women die.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Original point stands. Is it now OK to discriminate against people based on biological differences they cannot control? If you think men are more disposable because it requires more women to rebuild a population, should businesses be allowed to discriminate against women because they might get pregnant?
[–]wienerleg -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Of course they should be allowed to do that. There are relevant differences between men and women that can affect their ability to perform their job.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
I think the idea of a civilized society is that we allow the same access to privileges and freedoms to people regardless of how biology affects them. E.g. an just because someone is in a wheelchair, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to work just because their mobility is limited.
[–]wienerleg -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, that's fucking stupid. People with Downs Syndrome shouldn't be allowed to be physics professors, because they are inferior to other people at performing that task. A business has no reason to employ substandard people for no reason other than to make society seem more "civilized."
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
A business has no reason to employ substandard people
Well congratulations, you've now reverted back to the middle ages with cripples/lepers begging in the streets. Yes, that is truly the world I'd like to live in.
[–]wienerleg -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
No, I haven't done that. I've said businesses don't need to hire cripples. People still have a moral obligation to help them, but it's stupid to shift your moral burden to someone else at the expense of the rest of society.
People still have a moral obligation to help them, but it's stupid to shift your moral burden to someone else at the expense of the rest of society.
So we agree that people at biological disadvantages need to be helped. I believe that a civilized society is one that bands together and helps them, not one that leaves it up to certain citizens.
[–]wienerleg1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Interesting. Why does this necessitate forbidding employers from weighing gender-related obstacles in the hiring process?
Do you have a better way to societally band together to help those who were dealt a poor hand in the game of life?
Yes, it involves people in their daily lives being charitable to other human beings. Strangely, people usually don't like to see other people starving. Beyond the essentials, society as a whole doesn't need to directly increase the standing of other people. A woman not being hired because she might get pregnant doesn't ruin her life, just her day. People like you who think they deserve equal treatment despite that hindrance can hire them at their own businesses.
Yes, it involves people in their daily lives being charitable to other human beings.
I don't really see this happening all that often.
Most people drive by the homeless people I see in my town begging for change, the homeless shelter I volunteer at is drastically underfunded and over utilized.
Would it really be so bad to guarantee people the right to work, rather than make them rely on our charity?
You must not be looking very hard, a lot of effort in expended in the name of charity. People begging on streets easily make enough to not die, at least in large cities.
Everyone has a right to work. No one has a right to make someone pay them money. You can dig holes in your backyard and nobody can stop you. But requiring some people to give money in exchange for goods they don't want is basically theft. If I make someone hire a midget for his basketball team, I'm not doing that midget any good. I might as well steal the money from the owner and give it to him, so in that case he can still get the work of an efficient worker.
Actual liberties don't involve infringing on the rights of others, and I think requiring employers to reduce their standards because they hurt someone's feelings is going to end up being bad for even people who get hired, because competition in the marketplace should shove out businesses that have bad hiring practices (mandated by the government or not).
Either there is a surplus of labor, in which case we can't grant everyone jobs and it's nonsense to grant a right to work when no work exists, or there is a deficit of labor, in which case even deficient workers (read: women, cripples, midgets) will be employed. There's no need to legally require people to lower their standards, and it can only hurt in the long run.
Hi. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. If we didn't have government funding these people would die, we're a huge source of their food.
Your entire model leaves those who can't be competitive due to biological disabilities in the dust. You would still have cripples and lepers begging on the streets.
Well I personally think that some people will die no matter what we do, but I don't see a "right to work" being the optimal way to run charity. I just see it as a weird condescending way to pretend that people who can't do a job are just fine that just hurts employers, and if we do think it's necessary/moral to impair people to help others, we might as well just levy a tax and give charity.
I just think it's a weird moral solution to say "well no one helps these people so we're going to legally require you to put them somewhere they don't belong and give them money." Also this keeps oscillating between women and cripples but I guess my argument is way safer as far as women go, since they're not all going to starve in the street or whatever.
Why do you think a right to work is a better solution than just giving them money, especially when we have a surplus of workers anyway?
we might as well just levy a tax and give charity.
It's not these people are unable to work, in fact they might very well produce the same output. Even so, people would probably be less likely to hire them. Your choices are let them work, or let them stay at home all day and give them charity.
Why do you think a right to work is a better solution than just giving them money, especially when we have a surplus of workers anyway
Because I'd rather they work for their money just like everyone else?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
So what? We have over population as is: 7 Billion People. I see no down side.
Equality requires sacrifice. If you're not willing to fight for your rights you don't deserve them.
[–]xebo -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't mind if that's the conclusion you or society comes to, but female lives do effect the population more than male lives. That cannot be disputed. What you draw from that fact is your own business.
Though frankly, I'm a little disheartened that everyone here is downvoting my factual claim. You're all adults capable of forming your own opinions, but those opinions should be built upon an infrastructure of truth and reasoning, not political correctness and hysteria.
You're being downvoted for this opinion:
As such, we should place a premium on their lives.
Women are not breading factories and men are not disposable as this opinion implies. Breading is not the end all be all of life, and to place such a premium on it is just silly with the glut of population we have.
You're all adults capable of forming your own opinions, but those opinions should be built upon an infrastructure of truth and reasoning, not political correctness and hysteria.
Oh, and just wanted to add that opinion is asinine and built on anything but "truth and reasoning". You have an opinion and you're just trying to justify it.
[–]blow_hard 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm mostly feminist leaning but the thought of treating men as disposable (which, make no mistake, is what you are suggesting) is appalling to me, as it should be to anyone else with half a brain.
[–]xebo -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Nothing I've said is incorrect. My words are fact. You might not like them, but that's your problem.
I'm a little disheartened that everyone here is downvoting my factual claim. You're all adults capable of forming your own opinions, but those opinions should be built upon an infrastructure of truth and reasoning, not political correctness and hysteria.
Hahaha man you are delusional. If you are that self righteous, I'm not going to make any progress here. Have you ever paused to wonder that perhaps you're not the infallible bastion of logic and rationality that you seem to think you are?
That said, I will agree that supporters of the men's rights movement are some of the most hysterical people out there. I don't know if they've ever been too concerned with political correctness, though.
[–]xebo -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sad day for reddit when you can't face a simple fact. Shame on you.
[–]Unenjoyed 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Dare ya to cross post this to r/feminisms. Double dog dare ya.
[–]youcanttakemeserious 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
challenge accepted
[–]Santos_L_Halper 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And you fuck it up with a grammatical error.
[–]marswithrings 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
what did you excpect? youcan'ttake(him)serious(ly)
[+]youcanttakemeserious -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You should read all the comments brotha
[–]markinthedark 136 points137 points138 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
Why don't you get this? "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." When will you finally accept your male privilege you sexist pig? /s
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]brucemo 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It is all over the net, attributed to Hillary Clinton.
It is on wikiquote.
Context from there:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
Conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador (17 November 1998)
[–]fauxjargon 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
deleted What is this?
[–]airodynamic1000 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Woman on man DV is real How long have you been on MR that that fact is not clear
[–]fauxjargon2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm not saying that woman on man DV does not happen, but really, in places where man-on-woman DV is accepted, do you not think that a physically stronger man whose wife tries to beat him won't retaliate?
[–]geodebug 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Kind of loses a lot of the circle-jerk hate-factor when you read the whole thing in context. I could get all heated up about it but I think she probably meant with the fallout of war, including a lot of 3rd world perpetual conflicts.
Take the first inflammatory sentence off and what she means in context is actually relevant. Then again, leaders should pick their words more carefully so I guess we should rant rant rant.
[–]wasdninja 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Kind of loses a lot of the circle-jerk hate-factor when you read the whole thing in context.
It becomes less inflammatory but not by much. A shitty existance is better than no existance at all; death means game over. Forever.
[–]KingNick 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I know I just found this information out from you....but I'm about to make/post a picture of her with this quote overlain on it.
Cool?
[–]brucemo 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Certainly.
[–]KRATOSBRAH 54 points55 points56 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I first read that quote while I was on active duty, 18 years old and just came back from my first deployment.. The following week was quite a rage filled week. Quite.
[–]xebo 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I agree in that it's easier to sacrifice yourself than someone you care about.
I wouldn't frame her words as meaning any more than that.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But which one is the primary victim? The one who is dead, or the one who feels really horrible but still gets to live? (with all their limbs intact)
[–]darkgatherer 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Clearly, all of us who are alive are the real victims of the holocaust because we have to think about how bad it must have been. /s
[–]Kardlonoc 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah that would explain the "Dear John" letters as well! They didn't want to become victims of war!
[–]couldbeglorious 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If anyone actually said it to me I'd just be like
'Apart from the male soldiers. You know, the ones who die?'
[–]Psy-Kosh 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess one could sort of say "welll.... the soldiers are also the ones doing the killing, so they're not exactly innocent victims in all of it..."
But yeah, the quote is still ridiculous.
[–]Malithion 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That quote gets me everytime.
[–]nanomagnetic 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Well, technically, when you're dead, you're dead. The survivors, on the other hand?
[–]nepidae 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If they truly believe it is worse to be alive than dead, that really isn't a difficult problem to solve. My guess is they may say that, but they don't actually believe it.
[–]nanomagnetic 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm just saying the dead have no feelings and no anguish and no loss. They're dead. Clinton's remark isn't completely off-base.
[–]nepidae -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I understand that, but that just discounts the moments right before death when they actually do feel anguish. If our judgments are made on how people feel now then you could say that a murderer on trial suffers more than the murder victim, because the victim is dead and the murderer has to suffer the trial and prison/death row, which would be a fucked up thing to say.
[–]nanomagnetic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
See, that's just being extreme to make a non-point. I never discounted what the casualties of war feel. I'm just trying to point out that whether or not you're theistic, the dead have moved on, and the only victims left are their survivors.
When it comes to the aftermath of war, there is not a single policy you could follow to lessen the pain of the dead.
[–]nepidae -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The topic as I understand it is who the primary victims are, not lessening the pain of the dead.
[–]nanomagnetic 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And if the dead are gone. The primary victims are their survivors....
[–]Tetha 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Both the posted image and this quote are so oversimplified, it hurts my head. There is just soldiers who die, there is just civilians who die as colateral and there is just people who lose everything due to high explosives and bullets from various directions. It doesn't matter if you are a man, a woman, a child or a dog, war takes your life and your soul, crushes them and throws them into the garbage can.
[–]KingNick 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes, War is terrible. But when you say that Women are the true victims of war while good Men die is almost as bad (because feminists actually buy it)
[–]Tetha 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That was pretty much my point. There is no "true" and no "good" when it comes to casualties, rendering the implication void.
[–]spongemonster -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Great idea! Respond to sexism, with sexism!
[–]jvardrake 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
This sort of isn't going to work on "them".
I'm fairly confident in saying that they would just counter with the whole "Well, there wouldn't be any wars if it wasn't for men" line...
[–]levelate 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
one thing i've noticed when feminists speak of male privilege is that men are blind to it.
yet they deny, till they are blue in the face, that female privilege exists, because (and here is the kicker) they can't see it.
[–]Lecks 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
An obvious "counter-point" is that there are male feminists, try telling them about the indoctrination that masks female priviledge. I suggest wearing comfortable shoes.
[–]stemgang 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Men out having all the fun.
Plus don't forget how the women suffer when the men die.
[–]Hypersapien 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The government is oppressing women by sending their fathers, husbands, and sons off to die in war!
[–]significantshrinkage 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The men are oppressing women by sending themselves off to die in war!
[–]BrendanFraser 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I know how I'll put down women! I'll kill myself!
[–]purrit 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
what was the name of the woman who bitched about -no women in special forces- right after the news of bin laden's death? serious question.
[–]bnb2011 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Previously in a debate class we were tasked to come up with an alternative plan for engaging in foreign conflicts. The solution was a public vote before any foreign extended occupation (greater than 90 days of occupation), in which if you voted in favor of war you would agree to be drafted if needed.
Edit: We discussed about, people with disabilities and the elderly however the proposed plan we decided, would still influence young adults to become more politically active, as well as motivate parents of children to consider the consequences of their vote.
[–]mynameisflorian 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link
The thing is, there is male privilege in our society. There's also female privilege, white privilege, black privilege, Asian privilege, handicap privilege, etc, etc, etc -- but that doesn't make male privilege go away -- and you have no right to make me feel bad about something I can't really change.
Edit: Some people seem to be getting upset about my usage of the word "right" -- I don't mean it in the legal sense of a right. What I mean that if we're going to have a reasonable discourse, you don't get to do that. "Right" is probably not the best word. I hope that clarifies what I mean.
[–]context_free 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Frankly, I think that anyone who is offended by someone telling them that they have "privilege" (or uses it with the intent to offend) doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
I'm white. That's privilege, plain and simple. I cannot directly relate to, say, someone who is a visible minority on some levels because their experience of certain things is vastly different from mine. It would be patronizing and narrow-minded of me to try and explain what their experience must be like, to say that it "couldn't be that bad," or to deny that there is a problem, because I wouldn't see or experience or live it every single day of my life.
[–]KOAN13 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
handicap privilege
What...?
[–]TIA-RESISTANCE 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
He thinks "privilege" and "a privilege" are the same thing. Like, handicapped people are "privileged" because they get those big stalls and sweet parking spaces.
[–]BrendanFraser 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
AND THEY GOT RID OF MY ROUND DOORKNOBS
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seriously, those things are like studio apartments.
[–]typhonblue 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
and you have no right to make me feel bad about something I can't really change.
Interesting.
[–]downloadacar 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Yeah I disagree with that part. People can make you feel bad about whatever the hell they are able to. You don't have the right not to get your feelings hurt. That's exactly the kind of ridiculous thing I see claimed by radical feminists.
[–]mynameisflorian 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I added an edit. I don't mean "a right" in a legal sense, but rather in a civil sense. Someone might say that one who has never drank alcohol does not have the right to demand it's illegality. Obviously, they have that right in the legal sense.
[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
You are a fucking moron. I'm not entirely sure how you can look at the shit that comes out of your mouth and not understand why you are a picture perfect poster boy for everything that is wrong with society, and a disappointment to us as a species.
Please refrain from replying, as you have no right to not get your feelings hurt.
[–]downloadacar 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
as you have no right to not get your feelings hurt
So... we agree then? Because it's true. No one can force you to stay where you are being verbally abused, but you don't have the right to not have hurt feelings because of what anyone says. That's what freedom of speech is about in the first place - everyone has differences of opinion on what they feel is okay to say but this does not mean they have the right to stop someone else from speaking their mind.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
And if an atheist gets verbally abused in the bible belt for not going to church, it's the atheist's fault for not moving away. It's not like anyone is forcing him to stay there, and it's not like he has a right to be offended.
[–]downloadacar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Of course he has the right to be offended. How in the world could anyone stop him from being offended? He doesn't have the right to make everyone else stop saying "it's wrong not to go to church" - which, by the way, is significantly different from verbal abuse. I think if you'd ever seen a patient who had undergone real verbal abuse you'd be much less prone to call this theoretical situation "verbal abuse."
Just so I can understand the point you're making here lets flip the situation: if a christian was berated by atheists who offended him by constantly telling him God wasn't real should he/she move or seek legal counsel? In my opinion he has no right to make other people stop "offending" him with their speech.
The idea is that neither the hypothetical abused atheist nor the hypothetical abused christian should have to be forced to put up with blind discrimination. It shouldn't be the responsibility for the christian/atheist to learn to put up with people being stupid bigoted asshats, it should be the responsibility of society to stop normalizing the act of being a stupid bigoted asshat.
In my opinion he has no right to make other people stop "offending" him with their speech.
This isn't something I've been trying to disagree with, and not the point I'm making.
When I said:
and
It wasn't to argue that it is a right. It was to assert the notion that, because an act is not within active violation of a right, does not mean that the behavior should necessarily be acceptable nor tolerable.
[+]Kerdek -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Wrong. Verbal abuse is wrong. Florian also should not feel bad, because she(?) is not being attacked. The OP is attacking a claim, not a person, not women.
Every person has a right to feel safe, and a right to be spoken to with due respect; if a person violates that, they are in the wrong. There are a number of things that can be said with respect that hurt feelings, nonetheless. Take, for example, the phrase "I don't really feel that way about you." In cases like that, it is up to the person whether or not to feel bad. You have a right not to get your feelings hurt, and you are in control of it as long as you are treated with respect.
EDIT FOR NICENESS
[–]NotKennyG 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
You have a right not to get your feelings hurt
No you don't, you fucking imbecile. There is no right in any country to never have hurt feelings. Having your feelings hurt is not a violation of your rights.
This is not a matter of opinion, it's a goddamn fact and only a complete fucking moron could possibly think such flimsy and ambiguous horse shit like "not having your feelings hurt" could possibly be fit into an objective document on rights without eliminating the concept of free speech or human emotion itself.
Christ, you are a fucking moron. Go call the rights police because I'm practically a war criminal at this point you fucking half-wit.
[+]Kerdek -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
This is some great trolling.
AHEM
As personal attacks abound in this redditor's comment, he shows very well his inability to differentiate between legally protected rights and actual human rights. It's sad that he doesn't realize that, in the United States, slander and libel are provided against constitutionally, and that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable human right; to hurt another's feelings or treat another with contemptuous disrespect is to violate that. He then goes on to demonstrate that he has a low level of respect for other people by continuing to insist that it is never incorrect to treat another person with disrespect, and demonstrates his firm belief in that by exercising his ability to do so against me.
0/10 would not read again.
[–]NotKennyG 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
You are an idiot. First of all, you need to look up the definitions of libel and slander because neither one is based on hurt feelings.
Second, the right to pursue happiness means just that - you have the right to pursue happiness. It is not a requirement that everyone else refrain from hurting your feelings.
Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about.
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You are an idiot.
And, enough with the demeaning language. It's tacky.
[–]NotKennyG -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'll stop calling you an idiot when you stop writing idiotic things and trying to support them with irrelevant quotes.
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Personal attacks are simply not okay. Stop it.
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.
A basic property of human rights is that no person has a right to transgress another's rights. Treating a person disrespectfully does exactly that against their right to pursue happiness, and the cases of slander and libel are cases of disrespect.
[–]NotKennyG 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're talking out of your ass. Your own quote doesn't even support your argument. Where in that quote does it say anything about hurt feelings?
Even your own comment doesn't even support your own point. I really can't tell if you're a troll or a complete moron.
Show me one document that says you have the right not to have your feelings hurt. Just one.
And once again, the pursuit of happiness is not the guarantee of happiness nor is it a guarantee to never have your feelings hurt. You are flat-out wrong.
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are you really going to defend the stance that a person has every right to treat another with disrespect?
The quote was to make it clear that slander and libel are cases of disrespectful treatment of another.
I'll withdraw my claim that people have a right not to have their feelings hurt, but I still hold that each person has a right to be treated with the respect that is due to them.
Whether or not happiness is guaranteed is irrelevant to whether or not a person has a right to impede another's pursuit thereof.
[–]NotKennyG1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Do you not understand the difference between rights and common decency?
No it isn't. It's fundamental, not irrelevant. You have the right to pursue happiness, you do not have the right to ensure everyone cooperates with you and makes it easy for you and showers you with love and happiness.
I'm sorry, but your level of understanding is just so far out of whack with reality that this discussion is impossible. It's like trying to explain evolution to a creationist; there is a huge disconnect in knowledge that simply can't be overcome.
[–]JtheHomicidalManiac 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Funny you don't understand how wrong you are.
That alone expresses some very anti-social ideals.
Interesting indeed...seeing as how Feminists make it a point to give Men as much grief as possible for things we simply cannot change (the past, for instance.)
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
you have no right to make me feel bad about something I can't really change.
You realize that being "privileged" isn't used in the sense of "he has an advantage", but is used in the sense of "his judgement is clouded by his advantaged perspective", right?
If you didn't know you were privileged before, fine. Now you know. Change it by not being a fuckwad anymore, it's really that easy. Once the excuse of ignorance is gone, it's ALL ON YOU, BROHAN
[–]FlightsFancy 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
THANK YOU for providing such a clear explanation of the different paradigms for "privileged" being used in this debate. Upvotes forever!
SRS Troll should have known. No real feminist believes in "privilege" that's only for gender studies ideology and radical/gender feminists. I'll have to show this to my feminist friends they'll have a good laugh.
[–]Smight 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
You realize your last line is directly trying to make others feel bad about how you feel which is something they can't change right?
(Edit: you are ugly on the inside.)
[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I hope you are joking about the last part of your post. As if feminists don't spend all of their time trying to make men feel bad about things they can't change.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you can't control your own emotions, how the hell can I control them?
[–]failbus -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Is privilege a set of individual benefits, or the sum total? As great as I'm sure, say, affirmative action is for a black guy wanting to go to college, is it really worth all the other discrimination they run into? Is the net benefit positive?
Is a wheelchair parking place a privilege? I guess so, but I think most people would rather be able to walk.
It seems like whenever privilege comes up, there's the concept of an individual advantage, and the concept of the total advantages. Which one is it? Perhaps we should delineate these so we don't end up in stupid circular arguments with people using different terms.
[–]InfinitelyThirsting -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The thing is, you can't determine net benefit for such wide groups. There are a lot of white privileges that apply more if you're rich than just because you're white. Or female privileges that don't matter if you're a lesbian, or trying to get into a STEM field. Or male privileges that mean nothing in the net when you lose custody or are hit with a false rape accusation. Black privileges that only apply if you're really ambitious. Etc.
It's a really complex field.
[–]BZenMojo -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Black privileges that only apply if you're really ambitious.
White privileges are class privileges. Black privileges only apply if you're not lazy. Ah, coded language...
[–]InfinitelyThirsting -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What? No, I meant a lot of the leftover AA stuff--being black gives you an edge to boost numbers at colleges and a lot of corporations for their diversity quotas. There's a huge middle ground between ambitious and lazy, if you're not aware. I'm not a stereotypically ambitious person either, but I'm far from lazy; I don't want to be a doctor or lawyer or president, but I've started my own theatre company.
[–]C0CKPUNCHER 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there is both a male privilege and a female privilege that's a very obtuse use of the word privilege rendering it meaningless. The word your looking for is 'difference'.
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It's laughably easy to prove female privilege, but can you elaborate on handicap privilege and black privilege? Sure, AA for blacks exists, but that's hardly exclusive to blacks.
For it to be black privilege, it must be a privilege only for blacks and not for non-blacks.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Handicapped people get to park closer to buildings than I do!
[–]Celda 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
But you pay for that privilege - typically though not always with a reduced mobility.
Can't really call it a privilege if the reason it exists is justified - the typical usage of the word is having unjustified advantage.
Now of course I know you don't believe in handicap privilege, but I want to see what the other guy believes it is.
[–]Kerdek 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can certainly call it a privilege! Problem is, its value is significantly outweighed by the loss of one's ability to handicap.
[–]mynameisflorian 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have a friend who is wheelchair-bound -- and trust me, he gets way more help than he needs or even wants. Everybody wants to help the guy in the wheelchair. I'm not saying his life is all peaches and roses (it's nowhere near that), but he does enjoy privileges that I don't. Plus, nobody can ever make him stand up :-P
[–]Kerdek -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wrong. AA is a black privilege and a hispanic privilege and an orphan privilege, and a privilege of a few other groups. There is no such thing as a non-privilege, so you can't say that it's a white non-privilege. It is a privilege of everybody that fits the criteria for assistance.
[–]nlakes 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Any idea which exists in the public domain is free to be criticized, even ridiculed.
If this hurts anyone's feelings, it's irrelevant. As the right to free expression trumps the hurt feelings and sensibilities of any one individual or group.
[+]HITLARIOUS -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
give a hello to reddit's in-house concern troll brigade, r/ShitRedditSays.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Because I disagree with them, they must obviously be trolls"
Ok.
[–]Lorrdernie 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's a bot.
OMG! It's my first. This is awesome! Is there a special dance I get to do or something?
[+]Kerdek -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Dear Florian,
You have not even been addressed by OP's image; there's nothing here to make you feel bad. Only you can make yourself not feel bad.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
A person has no right to respect.
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is as etymologically ignorant as the term womyn.
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Every person has an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is within no person's right to transgress that.
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
True. One cannot hinder another's pursuit, but they are in no way obligated to respect another's pursuit. First amendment would apply here.
Edit: assuming American.
[–]Kerdek -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Time for bad grammar.
You can freedom of speech all you want all over any ideas, but if you get your freedom of speech onto any body who didn't want it all over them, those guise have been violated. DONT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON NON-CONSENTING PEOPLE.
There lies the divide.
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think we we've reached an agreement.
I tried my hardest to make it such that the comment also makes sense when you change the words 'freedom of speech' to 'jizz'.
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
aaaahhhHHH you're good!
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
*internet high five*
[–]MrSparkle666 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
War is the result of a patriarchal society. If women had the power, there would be no war.
/s
[–]PierceHarlan 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Right. We'd all be living under the Nazis.
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"War is the result of a patriarchal society. If women had the power, there would be no war." -CtG
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
dont you men UNDERSTAND
benevolent sexism is THE WHITE WOMAN'S BURDEN.
[–]Kombat_Wombat 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I used to defend /r/mensrights fervently, but this whole post and its comments are just here to get everyone worked up into an extremely defensive mode. The conversations happening here aren't eye opening, nor are they really making any point that has a productive direction to it. It's like everyone's sticking their heads in the sand and will only defend their own plots. It's the same exact problem that passionate feminists have.
I wish I had some good advice, but I don't.
[–]PierceHarlan 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, what's to get worked up about when we keep hearing about "male privilege" and we see example after example that it's bullshit. You're so right!
[–]Kombat_Wombat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your two sentence comment proved my point perfectly.
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
"We keep hearing"? The only place I hear about male privilege is on here, honestly.
[–]Hamakua 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then you only pay attention to it here then.
[–]trias_e 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the argument I've always used. It's a strong one and usually is pretty effective.
I also like the following: "If there was ubiquitous male privilege, they wouldn't have been saving the women and children first on the titanic. Just imagine 'Save all the men first!' in that situation. That's privilege right there."
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oddly, they would be legally required to include women in draft registration, had the Equal Rights Amendment ever been ratified.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, they wouldn't. Read Thomas Sowell's book Affirmative Action Around the World. "Gender equality" legislation frequently goes unenforced when the situation benefits women. In particular, the CRA 1964 has been enforced exactly backwards in the case of women, so that prohibitions against special programs just for one gender have been interpreted to require special programs just for one gender (to "offset" other discrimination or some shit).
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Semper Fidelis. Rest easy, brothers.
[–]jms3r 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
men are disposable, women are not
if you want to limit population growth you go for the women not the men
this is why europe could sustain two world wars so shortly after each other (the women were still alive)
[–]Malithion 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
But that boat was assembled by women who had to stay home.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Less than 30% of the workforce during most of WW2 was female.
[–]mynist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So what were women doing then?
[–]SpelingTroll 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Soldiers, mostly
[–]ajleece 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ba doom tish..
[–]Cr4igg3rs 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Only once, then they go to Marines.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Raising children for the most part. A number of them also were in the armed forces as nurses and in administrative roles, but I don't think that was counted in the "homefront workforce". It was around 400,000 women, which would have amounted a fairly small percentage of the armed forces. The entire homefront labor force was around 60million IIRC, so whether armed was counted or not it the difference would not have been as significant.
[–]tango646 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
writing dear John letters.
[–]Nautilis 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
makin' babies with the milkman.
[–]Malithion 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Every woman working you have to multiply by two because they had to work, then go be a house wife. which as you know is a job in itself!
[–]jargonista 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If you don't think raising children is important or difficult, you're fucking wrong.
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the reason good day care is so damned expensive.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Important yes, difficult yes, a second job? No.
I'll never understand this mentality. I have four kids and it's not a second job in the slightest. My wife would tell you the same thing!
[–]mynist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So... 60%?
[–]roharareddit 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I suppose they would have liked to trade places with the men in the boats then?
[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn patriarchy kept them down.
[–]mcmur 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Cannot upvote this enough, how is it possible for people to overlook this fucking enormous representation of male inequality.
Because men don't exist.
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is male privilage. Men got a european vacation, that image is them getting off the boat at the beach. That is some effiency. We also gave them clothes, food, water and toys. /s
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Male privilege doesn't extend to the lower class.
[–]DevinV 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Then it's not MALE privilege is it?
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Females don't have access to it even if they are rich.
[–]DevinV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think what you really mean is that all women have had the luxury of not being conscripted as cannon fodder, among other things.
[–]cislum -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No that wasn't at all what I was talking about. Saying that would be greatly simplifying a very complex issue. I was saying that Male privilege surely exists, but not half as often for the lower class. Also, just a reminder, I have to say that it isn't women sending poor people to war, it's rich men. I'm not saying women wouldn't if they had the same amount of power, but they don't, so they aren't.
[–]DevinV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What I was doing is saying how things are. Women are exempt from these things. Clearly not "male privilege."
You still haven't demonstrated how this nebulous concept supposedly exists, by the way. If only the tiny percentage of very wealthy males (and all females) all can avoid the things the overwhelming majority of males are subjected to, you cannot say this is "male privilege" in any way shape or form.
Also, just a reminder, I have to say that it isn't women sending poor people to war, it's rich men. I'm not saying women wouldn't if they had the same amount of power, but they don't, so they aren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You are saying what your opinion is, and as an American I respect that, but you have understand that your perspective is as confusing as the link you posted; are you calling me a coward or congratulating me on being peaceful, or extraordinarily brave?
Anyway, lets start basic. I don't know if you're American, but since you write in English I assume you know a little about American history. If you do. then you probably know all about the place of Afro-Americans in American society during the last few hundreds years. Of course they technically have the same rights as white people do now, but wouldn't you say that there are still echoes of the way they were treated in American culture? We made a big deal out of electing an African-American president for a reason. Do you deny white privilege?
You probably see where this is going. I don't know if you're a music fan, but I like to quote John Lennon when making this comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World (of course I might omit a certain word if I'm actually saying it) For most of history women have not had basic freedoms free men have had by default because they were women, not because they were poor or slaves. Women belonged in the household,and were often not allowed to own property or contribute to their society when there was democracy. These ideals are still very much alive in today's society, sadly often championed by women (http://onemillionmoms.com/). Men might fall further when things go bad, but we sure as hell have an easier time rising in society then women.
Would you rather have a semblance of security at the cost of the ability to be a part of the group that dominates society both culturally, and economically? OF course if you're one of the many unlucky men that end up pumping gas and going to war you might, but there are a lot of rich men out there capitalizing on the way society is structured. Give me an example of a female Newt Gingrich and I'll shut up.
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
If the military dislikes The Gays, imagine how it would feel about women.
I thought we'd agreed that most of the military was okay with Gays. Didn't they circulate a referendum or something before repealing don't ask don't tell? Most military personnel said they were okay with gays serving.
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
True, though would they have been okay during the time period when this picture was taken?
Yes. some of the men my grandfather fought side by side with were homosexuals. He didn't give two shits.
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not 100% sure about that but we'll never really know.
Your grand dad sounds like a reasonable person. Any good war stories?
He never said much, as is tradition. Can't blame them though. The few things he always talked about was not only preserving the life of the guys in his platoon as best he and they could do, but the freedoms of others from the Axis powers. He was in france when he learned of his friend's homosexuality and at first he was taken back, not out of disgust but it was an uncommon thing to know publicly. (The story goes he came out of a house with some dude and his face went sheet white like he had been caught doing the dirtiest thing - which, for the time period, that's the social outlook in many if not most places).
My grandfather just laughed and commented that he did always seem funny but couldn't care less what or who he did. They were literally fighting for freedom as they knew it.
He was one of those guys that didn't give a rats rear-end what anyone did as long as you didn't get in the way of their freedoms. Society be damned. I wish he were alive now to tell it himself - was one of the best men I ever knew.
That's the past. If all we do is look to the past and try to play the "who had it worst" game nothing will ever get done. Gotta start looking towards the future to establish equality for everyone.
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's how I feel about this pic.
If it were up to me, I'd put the politicians of warring nations in a boxing ring and the winner gets bragging rights.
I hate the idea that young men get shipped off even before they had a chance to experience life.
[+]redkey42 -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Men prevented women from being on the front line in the first place, and now you want to bash them because they weren't allowed? That's rich.
[–]PierceHarlan 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Every poll until relatively recently showed that women didn't think women should be drafted. And you obviously don't realize that women had the right to vote in 1941.
Call it "patriarchy," call it "male privilege," call it a ham sandwich if you want. There is no question that women were the "privileged" gender in this instance.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men (of drafting age especially but also the rest of them) don't want to be drafted either. But keep pretending your opinions have a basis in fact and arent women-hating bullshit stemming from whatever your insecurities are.
[+]redkey42 -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Those were very different times. Women were not in any sense of the word independant. The perception was that women in war times must produce babies for the next generation. I don't understand what you are getting at? Each sex has priviledges. Men enjoy the priviledge of being stronger and faster, women enjoy the priviledge of being able to decipher more colours than men, and more tones. What exactly is your point? That going to war was called a priviledge? Some actually viewed it that way. People lied about their age to go to war.
[–]PoundnColons 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You mistake the word privilege with biological differences. The point of this whole thread is that feminist cry out about male privilege while it is men who are sent to die and kill in war yet somehow people like Hillary Clinton still manage to claim that women are the primary victims of war.
[–]redkey42 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's still advantages that one gender has over the other. So why are you nitpicking? If the point of this thread was that Hillary Clinton said some stupid shit, why wasn't it called just that? Maybe she meant to refer to living with the death of your loved ones, being as hard as dying yourself? I don't know, and honestly I don't care anymore.
[–]PoundnColons 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You don't understand the difference between privilege and physiological differences....
It's not nitpicking, there is a clear difference. Privilege is created via social structure not physical abilities. They are two completely different concepts of advantage.
No she didn't mean living with the death of loved ones is as hard as dying. She specifically calls women the victims. Mothers losing sons and daughters losing fathers, because we all know the fathers who lost sons and the sons who lost fathers don't matter.
[–]redkey42 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And why is Hilary Clinton representative of all women again? Oh, she's not? Than stop acting like women are pushing their loved ones to die in battle because of a feminist agenda. Fucking insane.
[–]PoundnColons 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't even remotely suggested that she represents all women nor have I suggested that women are pushing men into war. Hillary Clinton's words represent a mentality, a horrible and flawed mentality. That is what is being discussed here.
[–]redkey42 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
The point of this whole thread is that feminist cry out about male privilege while it is men who are sent to die and kill in war yet somehow people like Hillary Clinton still manage to claim that women are the primary victims of war.
Feminists cry out about lack of equality, not male privilege. No one is trying to take men's rights away, we're trying to give more equality across the board. Usually it's a giving of rights, but not over the rights of someone else. There is no evil intent to overthrow men, or devalue them. Most women simply want to be thought of as an equal person. Part of that has been the movement to put women on the front lines in war.
[–]levelate 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
TIL
Men enjoy the priviledge of being stronger and faster
that biology is a privilege
and yes, in both world wars 'people' (BOYS) lied about their age, i believe that had more to do with being shamed to fight more than anything else.
and who was it doing the shaming?
feminists.
[–]redkey42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Why are you answering your own questions? Show me evidence that feminists in their evil, shamed underaged boys into going to war? Were there any female politicians of influence at all? It seems to me like, yet again, the actions of a handful of women, are taken to represent the entirety...
[–]levelate 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
the suffragetts were a huge factor in the white feather campaign, look it up if you don't believe me.
[–]redkey42 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nope. Don't know about the white feather campaign. If you wish to enlighten me, provide information. The purpose of discussion is provide insight to the other party, not give them a book reading list.
It seems to me like, yet again, the actions of a handful of women, are taken to represent the entirety...
Geez, feminists wouldn't know anything about taking the actions of a minority to represent the entirety, would they?
[–]Abe_Vigoda -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a very fair perspective. I have a problem with these gender specific subs becoming one big circle jerk and it's always good to hear the other side's perspective.
[–]PierceHarlan 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, yes, a fair perspective! Because we all know that women didn't have the right to vote in 1941!
[+]youcanttakemeserious -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
delivered http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/pfosh/your_welcome/
[–]zachbredberg 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why did you make the title "Your welcome"? Not only did you use the wrong "you're" but that comes off condescending and rude.
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
you need to read usernames....this is my novelty account...
[–]zachbredberg 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
everybody gets one
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
male privilege also seems to be self-congratulation.
[–]jadolf -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
holy shit how stupid you all are
[+]anachronic -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also could be classified under /r/circlejerk/
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The ball is now in your court radfems... what now?
[+]Kombat_Wombat -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This isn't really making a solid point. Can anyone articulate what point that this exactly makes? Who is this attacking? Is there an agenda, and to what end is it working towards?
Compare this (I don't know if I can even call it an) argument to posters of abortion where they say, "The baby has a heartbeat at three months" or what have you. It completely sidesteps the real discussion to be had. It doesn't say anything on its own, and it completely ignores arguments about abortion that are tried and true.
[–]jargonista 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Every time a female makes some claim about how, historically, women have been oppressed by the patriarchal structure of society for millenia, they forget one tiny fact. That it wasn't just the women. There were rich bastards at the top who always exploited everyone below them for benefit. And anyone who thinks that the men had it easier ignore the fact that no one ever convinced droves of women to gather in fields or on beaches to push deadly pieces of metal into each other. Nope, that was all men. So, yeah, being a woman probably sucked a lot, and has sucked for a long time, and probably continues to suck. But that's not the average man's fault, they get fucked over too. And it's the bastards at the top who are fucking us all over.
Let's be clear, WWII was a justified war (from the allied side of things). But how many wars have been fought in the world? And how many were justified? And how many were fought by men. I think you get my point.
[+]Nexlon -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
The female soldiers of the Red Army would like to have a word with you.
[–]themountaingoat 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The fact that some of the people who died in the war were female does not invalidate the fact that the majority were men.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You mean the snipers? Even if every last one of the female snipers-who aren't on the front lines-were killed, that wouldn't have even been 1% of the fatalities in WW2
[–]Nexlon -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
800,000 women served in all branches of the Soviet military, not just as snipers. While they were very successful snipers, they were also excellent (and also often front-line) medics, pilots, machine gunners, and tank operators. A very large number of women also served in direct combat roles as partisans hailing from Poland to the steppes of Mongolia.
To say that women didn't serve on the front lines or that they didn't perform their duties admirably when the Red Army was in a time of extreme need is insulting.
While I'd love to have a draft that included both men and women, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Never said that.
[–]kragmoor -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yeah men are so privileged i mean god they get to sign up for the draft what misogynist assholes being forced to do that it just shows how much they are oppressing us womyn
[+]killyoureparents -28 points-27 points-26 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
How many of you shitlords saw this, stroked your beds and approved, while never having worked a day in your life let alone been in the army?
The army sure as shit doesn't teach you that men>women.
[–]aloneinlove 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have been in the army. Fuck you.
[–]douglasmacarthur 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Neither of the things you're challenging - "we are men and men were in BoN and therefore we're awesome" or "men are better than women" - are being said by the picture or in this thread.
[–]purrit 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i was in the military, as were most of my older male relatives. great-uncle died while flying a plane during the invasion of italy. fuck you.
[–]KRATOSBRAH 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Have YOU ever been in the military? Former Marine Grunt here and I beg to differ, the culture in the Army&Marine Corps is hardly hospitable to Females.. I'm just sayin.
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
yeah...go ahead and take a look at what you need to pass a pt test for females compared to males.
women get by way to easily in the military, ive gone to too many damn SHARP classes because women take things way to seriously
not that ive caused the sharp classes, but from what others have "done"
my SHARP NCO is a female, completely sexist. she talks about how we should respect women, but in civis she wears the sluttiest clothes, and fucked 2 other NCOs in one night
[+]anachronic -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Because we all know that women having sex makes them sluts and unworthy of any respect.
But when guys fuck many women, they're totally cool dude.
/facepalm (nice username)
[–]youcanttakemeserious 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
this one im kind of being serious on haha
this was during a battalion party...and anytime a male would go up to a female with a drink, or had been drinking, she would almost basically forcefully seperate them, or threaten to tell the higher ups
but its perfectly ok for her to go around and get hammered and then fuck 2 different dudes in one night
[–]anachronic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
It should be perfectly fine for a dude to fuck 2 different women in one night... I fail to see the issue here.
[–]youcanttakemeserious 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
but its perfectly fine for her to fuck 2 different dudes
yes, indeed
[–]anachronic -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That sounds like my idea of a fun night of Eiffel towering her.
[–]youcanttakemeserious -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
i wish that it did...except she's very fugly, and over weight...and has acne
[–]anachronic -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Nothing a few beers couldn't fix... and now we go full circle
[–]youcanttakemeserious -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
i prefer my whiskey
[–]anachronic1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm a scotch man personally, but cheers all the same :)
[–]drinkthebleach1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Oh my god will you guys just make out already?
Can't... too busy fapping.
[–]ajleece 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Nope.. Why does this argument always appear?
A; their sex lives (BOTH GENDERS) are none of anyone's business.
B; if they're happy with what they do, who the fuck cares?
C; most people see the 'sex sluts' the same, regardless of gender.
[–]anachronic -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, that was kind of my point... I was being sarcastic.
It's hypocritical and a double-standard for guys to insult women for sleeping around, but high-five each other when men do it.
[–]ajleece 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
EXCEPT THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD
I'll never high five a guy for sleeping with everyone. And I think I speak for many 'normal' males.
And it's kind of sexist that you're assuming all males behave how you have described.
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So you would call a man a slut if he told you he went out to a bar and met this hot chick and took her home and banged her?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight
[–]ajleece 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As opposed to what, if they were a women?
Men are like keys and women are like locks. A key that opens any lock is a pretty awesome key. A lock that opens for any key is a pretty shit lock.
How many of you shitlords
you're projecting sweetheart.
[+]BarackObamazing -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
Voting to go to war? Another male privilege during WWII. There was only one vote against going to war with Japan, and it came from the first woman elected to Congress, Jeanette Rankin. Still the only female elected to Congress from Montana, and the only person to vote against both WWI and WWII.
Regardless, the commentary provided with the photo does not reflect reality. During WWII, old men sent young men to war and instructed them to kill en masse supposedly protected civilians of all sexes. There is no gender discrimination in war, only suffering for all involved.
*Edited for clarity
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is no gender discrimination in war, only suffering for all involved.
Is that why 99+% of combat deaths are men?
Yes rape of women is used a weapon during war, but as awful as that is, while the women were getting the raped, the men were dying.
There is no discrimination except that men can be conscripted and forced to fight while women cannot, but you know, there's no gender discrimination in war or anything.
Also, your fact about Rankin is interesting info but ultimately irrelevant here. The issue is not the existence of war, which was largely justified given the enemy were the goddamn nazis, but the fact that men and women are held to completely different standards that happen to be beneficial to women.
But double standards that favor one sex over another aren't really gender discrimination when they favor women, right? /rolleyes
[–]themountaingoat 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So you think we should have let the Nazi's be then?
[–]memymineown 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I love how you failed to include a source for the relative number of deaths by gender.
Also, you don't really understand how privilege works do you?
[+]BarackObamazing -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I made no comment about relative deaths by gender. I was talking about the fact that wars result in suffering for all people regardless of gender.
What was the relative number of male vs. female civilian deaths at Leningrad, Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima or any of the other cities that were utterly destroyed in WWII? I, for one, don't care. Millions of people were killed, injured or otherwise traumatized. The victims' genders don't matter to me. Seriously, why are MRAs complaining about men having to fight a war in which we did this to people of all genders?
Before MRAs start complaining about men having to fight in WWII, they should remember that men were almost exclusively empowered to start a war at the time. There's where I see privilege. Seriously, look for a woman on this list. Next, try this one.
Before you blame all wars on men, remember that women could vote for in most countries during world war II, so they bear equal responsibility for the decisions of their elected leaders. Women chose those elected as much as men did, so if they were not okay with male leaders they could have chosen female leaders.
[–]memymineown 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What you don't seem to understand is that privilege and oppression for a group of people are not mutually exclusive. Men have a very wide range of nearly everything. So it doesn't make sense to claim that all have privilege when it is only the ones at the very, very top that do.
MRAs are complaining because far more men died. In every single war before and after that the ratio of male:female deaths is even worse.
[–]BarackObamazing -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
About 70m people were killed on WWII. Around 25m were military deaths, and the rest were civilians. I can't find a breakdown of deaths by sex. When most killed were civilians, how can you be sure that most casualties were male?
[–]memymineown 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So you can't actually provide any statistics whatsoever to back up your claims?
Good for you. Perfectly conforming to the strict standards of feminist study.
[–]elitez 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So you are saying that voting to ignore an entirely unjustified act of war on your own soil is a good thing?
[–]purrit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
also, you think obama is amazing.
i voted for van buren.
[–]dangerpantz -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And if women were allowed to serve in the military in battleground combat, then that picture wouldn't have looked like that.
[+]Kerdek -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
The trouble I have with this is that the photo is from a bygone era, and OP is trying to use it to say something about male privilege today. It's temporally irrelevant. Furthermore, it seems to insinuate that male privilege is no better than this.
Unfortunately, privilege-checking is a must in a conversation about race, gender, sexuality, and the likes, and the value of men's privileges in the states is greater than the value of women's privileges, still. The MRA's thesis is that there are instances of female privilege superiority, and his/her purpose is to narrow the gap in those instances, but that still permits for -- and it is the case that -- white, heterosexual, cismales are the most privileged group in the world; let's not forget that. Posts like this seem to be an attempt at drowning men in their own pity by projecting men's difficulties in some areas into every area.
Edit: Shifted punctuation in final sentence.
[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yes, today men are not required to die in a major war, but if there is a major war men will be drafted. Also, male disposability is relevant in many other ways in society, for example men work more dangerous jobs, men are most of the victims of crime, and people generally pay much more attention to the suffering of women than the suffering of men.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yes, today men are not required to die in a major war
98% of military fatalities from Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom were men.
[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not required. Men still do it and deserve respect for that, but the men in Iraq were not drafted. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Men are nonetheless subjected to a higher obligation to danger. Women in the military aren't handed a rifle and sent to the front lines, but any man that isn't medically disqualified could. I was in the Navy in the nuclear field, and although it wasn't likely at any time they could go "okay, we're sending you here after like a 2 week combat refresher course" to me just by virtue of being a man.
Even in a volunteer military, you can be voluntold to do a lot of things.
Combine that with a lower standard of entry for women yet equal pay, and it's offensive to me.
Yes, I agree, and I said something similar in my first post.
[–]PierceHarlan 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The "value of men's privileges in the states is greater than the value of women's privileges."
No it isn't.
[–]Kerdek -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't be ignorant about the wage gap and that men are seen as smarter and more capable and about social superiority.
[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The ignorance about the wage gap is your own. Women make less money, because they work less and choose easier jobs. All studies that say otherwise are just lying.
Here's a good article that explains that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html
As for "seen as more capable" yeah, sorry, that's a pile of shit.
In reality, men face equal or greater discrimination than women:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/isb7f/mens_rights_and_womens_rights_are_not_mutually/c26ar1d
[–]superproxyman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
cismales
thank you for giving me my daily lulz.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why don't most people who talk about privilege mention wealth privilege? It's by far the largest privilege out there.
[–]ValiantPie 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why do you insist on playing oppression olympics? Is it that hard to just say that everybody is fucked over by gender roles?
Also, there is the fact that this ties into the more general idea of male disposability. If you want to see young men being pulled into a viscious pointless cycle of violence and death, you need only to look at the plight of those involved in gang violence. And yes, most of those men and boys are minorities, which is why more people here need to examine intersectionality.
[+]FreddyDeus -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It seems compulsory for someone to post this image on here once every few months.
Why?
It isn't as clever and as persuasive as some people obviously think it is.
You certainly won't win any arguments against feminists, because feminism addressed the issue of war and conscription decades ago.
Feminists don't deny that men die in wars. They also argue that it is men who start wars in the first place. That if men have a problem being asked to fight and die in a war, don't complain to a woman, complain to the male who started it.
They also argue that the often young and poor men who die in wars do so at the behest of the senior ranks of the patriarchy.
This is, in fact, one of the central pillars of the feminist argument that men too are victims of the patriarchy.
So posting this picture over and over and over again isn't particularly clever. I'm not sure who the OP is trying to convince or what he is trying to convince them of.
If anything, this plays straight into the hands of feminists.
[–]GavnLogic 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No wonder you always get down voted.
[–]PierceHarlan 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Do you realize how puerile your argument is?
The men who were victims of "patriarchy" and who died in WWII kept the women in America from being victims of fascism.
Spin it all you want, pal, in this instance, there's no question which gender is "privileged."
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yes clearly all those Commander in Chiefs, Presidents, army generals and basically anyone in a position of power since the 1900s have been feminists and that is why women don't get sent to war. You're a fucking idiot.
[–]FreddyDeus -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No, you are the fucking idiot. You and my 'pal' PierceHarian. You are so fucking retarded that you don't know the difference between someone who is presenting an argument of their own, and someone who is relating someone else's argument. Perhaps if you bothered reading posts properly, you half-witted fucking moron, you wouldn't look like such an empty head fucking twat.
You see, that wasn't my argument. That was the feminist argument. I did do my best to make it clear that it was the feminist argument by saying on at least half a dozen occasions that this was the feminist argument. If you had a few more brain-cells to rub together, or were not one of the increasingly hysterical idiots that seem to populate r/mensrights these days, you might have noticed that.
My point, the one you and my imbecilic 'pal' failed to pick up on is this. When people keep repeatedly posting this image, what is it that they want to achieve? What is it that they're trying to say?
They certainly aren't making an argument-winning case to feminists, because as my original post made clear, they've already come up with their answer to that kind of point, whether you agree with it or not.
And it certainly is not saying anything new to us.
So to repeat my question. Why the fuck does this image get posted and upvoted with such fucking tiresome regularity?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I wasn't talking to you. You can tell because my post is in response to someone who isn't you. Hope this helps.
[–]FreddyDeus -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I do apologise.
EDIT: Exclude yourself from the rant. It is now aimed solely at the idiot above you.
[+]Griff_Steeltower -14 points-13 points-12 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
In a way it is. Warriors command a lot of cultural capital. Especially in America. Especially in 1940s America. Culturally it's still only okay to have men dying in war. As individuals, that's bad. As a gender, it's enabling. Actually, things that command a lot of capital aren't always pleasant (high society manners, anyone? And since when is being in charge always 'pleasant'?). Yes, it sucks to storm Normandy. But still, as a gender, the fact that it was our duty and honor to do it shows our cultural primacy. When the citizens of the US decided to kick the Brits to the curb, it was the men who made the decision because it was the men who had the guns because men were seen as the moral authorities. When the ship goes down the women get the boats first, the men get the buckets, and with them, the authority. Not saying it's right or good, it's certainly uneven and different but I think a lot of people with both Xs and Ys would opt for the greater responsibility. I would.
[–]johnmarkley 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is the sort of idiocy that results from treating a group as vast and diverse as an entire sex as homogenous. The very last thing a conscript has is "authority."
[–]JeremiahMRA 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you know all white people are evil as well?
[–]Griff_Steeltower -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As I said, bad for the individual, enabling for the gender.
[–]thetrollking 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, ok.
Maybe you should google the white feather campaign. Oh look. I will do it for you.
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i
[+]rross -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
From what I can see has nothing to do with MensRights.. unless you are referring to the draft?
edit: go on then.. bury me. Do you really think this place is for highlighting the shitty things men have to do? That's a real shame. This kind of bullshit makes a mockery of the idea of mens rights.
[+]ICumWhenIKillMen -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hey, I remember [World War 2]. That was when those men voted for that man who appointed those men who killed those men (because our men did bad things to their men because their men killed our men and other men because someone shot a man) and the men seized the land owned by other men (wash and repeat) and the men who were buds with our men were like "help" and the men were like "no" and these other eastern men killed our men so our men killed their men and also those original men were dicks so our men killed their men and like a fucking shitload of Russian men died too killing those men and the men in charge were voted for by the men who could vote and the men supported the men killing because those other men had to die and so lots of men died for those other men until the bad men were dead and the men in charge split up the land of the bad men for the personal and political gain of the winning men and men in suits were locked in a secret war with the other men who won who were once allies and, well, I guess what I'm getting at is that it's all women's fault.
[+]killyoureparents -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Patriarchy hurts males too what?!?!
LOL a system where men have all the advantages based on gender also sends the men to die, but it's still a system where men come out on top?
When will you silly shits learn that CEOs does not equal "men". CEOs happen to be men, but they don't represent the state of men anymore than the king of england represents the state of the average english peasant from the 1700s.
[+]PissyAndGrumpy -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because no women go to war.
[–]KingNick -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
DUDE this has been my iPad wallpaper ever since I can remember! (though I like the quote on mine much more.)
[+]ArchangelleSarielle -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You guys are my favorite source of logical fallacies. I can't drink milk while reading your posts cause it all comes out my nose :(
This subreddit is proof that many redditors are forever alone males who are angsty over their inability to initiate conversation with females in public. You are the bravest
[–]ValiantPie 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for providing us another example of gender roles being used against men, but that isn't the one people are talking about right now. Perhaps that would be a good discussion for later, though!
[+]ArchangelleSarielle -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
gender roles being used against men
hahaha more proof that you're forever alone
"Why do I have to approach women?!?! Can't they court me in my basement dwelling??"
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unimaginative troll is unimaginative...
[+]s34hunt -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i want to use my vagina in this situation. do you think that a vagina is not as GOOD in this situation? you are a sick piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig. a sick piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig. i can't believe youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points (85 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 60 points61 points62 points (59 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 12 points13 points14 points (58 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 44 points45 points46 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]FazedOut 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 1 point2 points3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 6 points7 points8 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]catipillar1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 5 points6 points7 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar -1 points0 points1 point (38 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 8 points9 points10 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar -3 points-2 points-1 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 9 points10 points11 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]NightAria -1 points0 points1 point (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 1 point2 points3 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]NightAria2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NightAria1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]BinaryShadow 3 points4 points5 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 3 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]g2petter 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BinaryShadow 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Jyrsa1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Aikidi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SpaceDog777 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FreddyDeus 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SpaceDog777 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]docsquidly 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]XDingoX83 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BinaryShadow 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]XDingoX83 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pizzlybear 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 60 points61 points62 points (204 children) | Copy Link
[–]tnw1 64 points65 points66 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]nikocujo 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]cercer 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted 2 points3 points4 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted 1 point2 points3 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted 2 points3 points4 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]expletive-deleted1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]YesImSardonic -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]YesImSardonic 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hillarysmanbag 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 18 points19 points20 points (138 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 43 points44 points45 points (91 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 52 points53 points54 points (73 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 22 points23 points24 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]royboh 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NiceGuysSTFU -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]GavnLogic -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 15 points16 points17 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]semperverus -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]superiority 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]superiority 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ballsey 15 points16 points17 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Falsum2 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]N8theGr8 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]N8theGr8 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blakkadder -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]blakkadder 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]blakkadder 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]youseeah 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]youseeah 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]bikemaul 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist 10 points11 points12 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 3 points4 points5 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]miss_bonbonbonbon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SchrodingersRapist3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]notcaptainkirk 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 9 points10 points11 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]srshk213 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BinaryShadow 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 7 points8 points9 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]YesImSardonic 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwaway6237 2 points3 points4 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Stuartc084 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace 14 points15 points16 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]marswithrings 23 points24 points25 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]smischmal 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]marswithrings 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]marswithrings 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheRadBaron 9 points10 points11 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace 4 points5 points6 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheRadBaron 3 points4 points5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace 6 points7 points8 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]eberkimer2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]eberkimer3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KilliamWallace3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BrendanFraser 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]radamanthine 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NiceGuysSTFU 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Metaphoricalsimile -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]boss1000 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]xebo -10 points-9 points-8 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[+]xebo -7 points-6 points-5 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg -4 points-3 points-2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]wienerleg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]xebo -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]xebo -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]blow_hard 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xebo -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Unenjoyed 27 points28 points29 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Santos_L_Halper 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]marswithrings 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]youcanttakemeserious -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]markinthedark 136 points137 points138 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]brucemo 29 points30 points31 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]fauxjargon 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]airodynamic1000 -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fauxjargon2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]geodebug 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wasdninja 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]brucemo 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRATOSBRAH 54 points55 points56 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xebo 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]darkgatherer 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kardlonoc 22 points23 points24 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]couldbeglorious 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Psy-Kosh 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Malithion 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nanomagnetic 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]nepidae 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]nanomagnetic 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]nepidae -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]nanomagnetic 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]nepidae -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nanomagnetic 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tetha 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Tetha 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spongemonster -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jvardrake 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]levelate 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stemgang 24 points25 points26 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hypersapien 18 points19 points20 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]significantshrinkage 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BrendanFraser 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]purrit 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bnb2011 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynameisflorian 36 points37 points38 points (61 children) | Copy Link
[–]context_free 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KOAN13 19 points20 points21 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TIA-RESISTANCE 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrendanFraser 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 25 points26 points27 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]downloadacar 5 points6 points7 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynameisflorian 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]downloadacar 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]downloadacar 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kerdek -10 points-9 points-8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 5 points6 points7 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kerdek -8 points-7 points-6 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JtheHomicidalManiac 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlightsFancy 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Smight 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]failbus -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BZenMojo -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]C0CKPUNCHER 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynameisflorian 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nlakes 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]HITLARIOUS -8 points-7 points-6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lorrdernie 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynameisflorian 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kerdek -6 points-5 points-4 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrSparkle666 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kombat_Wombat 15 points16 points17 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kombat_Wombat 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]trias_e 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jms3r 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Malithion 3 points4 points5 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 24 points25 points26 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynist[S] 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpelingTroll 22 points23 points24 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ajleece 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cr4igg3rs 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tango646 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Nautilis 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Malithion 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]jargonista 14 points15 points16 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]IllThinkOfOneLater 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mynist[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]roharareddit 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcmur 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]DevinV 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DevinV 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cislum -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DevinV 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZombieKitty 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]redkey42 -12 points-11 points-10 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 16 points17 points18 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]redkey42 -10 points-9 points-8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoundnColons 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]redkey42 -5 points-4 points-3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoundnColons 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]redkey42 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoundnColons 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]redkey42 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]levelate 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]redkey42 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]levelate 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]redkey42 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abe_Vigoda -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]youcanttakemeserious -6 points-5 points-4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]zachbredberg 26 points27 points28 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]zachbredberg 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jadolf -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]anachronic -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kombat_Wombat -7 points-6 points-5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jargonista 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Nexlon -10 points-9 points-8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Nexlon -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kragmoor -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]killyoureparents -28 points-27 points-26 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]aloneinlove 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]douglasmacarthur 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]purrit 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRATOSBRAH 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious -4 points-3 points-2 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[+]anachronic -12 points-11 points-10 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious 4 points5 points6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic -2 points-1 points0 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic -3 points-2 points-1 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]youcanttakemeserious -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]drinkthebleach1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]anachronic1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ajleece 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ajleece 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ajleece 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]BarackObamazing -20 points-19 points-18 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NotKennyG 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]memymineown 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]BarackObamazing -9 points-8 points-7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]memymineown 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BarackObamazing -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]memymineown 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]elitez 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]purrit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dangerpantz -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kerdek -12 points-11 points-10 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kerdek -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]superproxyman 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValiantPie 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]FreddyDeus -12 points-11 points-10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]GavnLogic 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PierceHarlan 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]FreddyDeus -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FreddyDeus -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Griff_Steeltower -14 points-13 points-12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]JeremiahMRA 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griff_Steeltower -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thetrollking 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]rross -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ICumWhenIKillMen -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]killyoureparents -20 points-19 points-18 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]PissyAndGrumpy -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingNick -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ArchangelleSarielle -17 points-16 points-15 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValiantPie 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]ArchangelleSarielle -13 points-12 points-11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]s34hunt -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link