~ archived since 2018 ~

Until there are equal responsibilities, there will not be equal rights. This is a step in that direction.

KenaiStar

June 1, 2012

21 upvotes

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/24/11842777-female-soldiers-sue-to-lift-combat-ban-solely-on-the-basis-of-sex?lite

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Until there are equal responsibilities, there will not be equal rights. This is a step in that direction.
Author	KenaiStar
Upvotes	21
Comments	16
Date	June 1, 2012 9:34 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ug957/until_there_are_equal_responsibilities_there_will/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/until-there-are-equal-responsibilities-there-will.1020646 https://theredarchive.com/post/1020646

Comments

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]KenaiStar[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]KenaiStar[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]KenaiStar[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

A few things: First the army reserve has faced a significant about of combat time over the last ten years because of the ongoing multiple wars. The reserve does play a significant role on the battle field. Secondly as disappointed as you are about this lawsuit, this is what equality progress looks like. Those two women could be opening doing this for the money and it still would be an improvement. Once the legal channel is made other women could follow in their footsteps and serve open combat. Third, women have only serving in the military in combat positions for a relatively short period of time. There are still plenty of areas that are men only, such as the special forces. Expecting policy and procedure that you don't agree with to change at a rate that would satisfy you is naive. Lastly, if you don't like the different fitness standards for men and women why don't you do something about it? http://www.military.com/aboutus/twocolumn/0,15929,Press-Room,00.html You can start by contacting Sarah Blansett in the press center, her contact info is in the link above. Talk about the current standards and find out what would have to be done to change them. Then get people together and start doing that. Arguing on Reddit is not a very effective method for creating equality.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]KenaiStar[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I bet they said the same thing about conscription and women voting.

The problem is, women consistently have higher voter turnout than men. Also conscription is different from enlistment. Personally I would like to do away with the draft all-together as compared to changing voting registration laws to have women added to the draft list.

Expecting people to suddenly have to earn something they didn't before and be okay with it is rather naive.

What are you trying to say here? For the issue with the military, there are women who do want to fight on the front lines but are not allowed to. Not everyone will be happy about changes in laws and politics, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. For example family courts are biased against men, changing that will upset people. But that doesn't mean those laws shouldn't be changed.

It's not like we can't incorporate both provisions simultaneously.

It's very difficult to pass new laws and change policies, each area to be changed requires a tremendous amount of manpower and financial support. Also these women are trying to change policy through litigation, the courts won't allow a claim that has to many parts.

Well informing people and discussing the pros and cons of various scenarios would allow to have a coherent view for a group.

Research and education are important, I'll give you that. But it doesn't mean anything if everyone sits around discussing points endlessly and never starts a plan of action. You are very passionate about the different fitness standards in the army, and I do agree with you on that concept. I'm not trying to argue against it. I'm pointing you in the direction to act upon your ideals.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The problem is, women consistently have higher voter turnout than men. Also conscription is different from enlistment. Personally I would like to do away with the draft all-together as compared to changing voting registration laws to have women added to the draft list.

Yes there is a difference. One is a privilege, the other is an obligation. Eliminating the draft altogether isn't practical as it is at least a necessary contingency option.

What are you trying to say here? For the issue with the military, there are women who do want to fight on the front lines but are not allowed to. Not everyone will be happy about changes in laws and politics, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. For example family courts are biased against men, changing that will upset people. But that doesn't mean those laws shouldn't be changed.

They should be changed, but people who benefit from such laws will fight against it, because people are self interested. We could have had universal standards decades ago, but we still don't.

It's very difficult to pass new laws and change policies, each area to be changed requires a tremendous amount of manpower and financial support. Also these women are trying to change policy through litigation, the courts won't allow a claim that has to many parts.

Do you really think they'd just sue to be held to a higher standard?

I'm not trying to argue against it. I'm pointing you in the direction to act upon your ideals.

I am well aware of the common perception in this country where women are held to different standards for their benefit and that that is "a good thing for women, because opportunities!", and I do have conversations with people outside the internet in hopes of informing them, but until people are receptive to even the idea of holding women equally accountable, any advocacy will just appear as forcing unfairness down women's throats and will elicit a defensive reaction.

[–]KenaiStar[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KenaiStar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Phrasing it differently helps. For example 'streamlining fitness standards in military exams to improve efficiency' sounds better than 'changing the military exams to prevent female applicants from taking positions away from more qualified males' even though both are true.

I would agree one is more palatable, but here in this very case we see where women can claim victimization and be taken seriously, whereas men are not. There are numerous possibilities as to why that is, but it would appear there is a double standard.

As for sports I'm referring to non-amateur leagues. I would consider college and Olympics professional because a) college athletes there on scholarship and b) it's a means to professional opportunities in both professional leagues and endorsements for both.

For example, the world record for women in many events is often lower than the qualifying metric for men. Men must work harder/accomplish more for the same rewards, and men who are "tier 2" are denied opportunities even if they're better than the best women ever, who get similar opportunities to men while doing less.

[–]KenaiStar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course there is a double standard. But wiggling around it and turning people's arguments against themselves is what makes politics so much fun.

While female leagues receive scholarship money and endorsements, I don't see them posing much of a financial threat to the male leagues. Male leagues attract much more advertising revenue and have much higher wages, which I think is fair.

For the world record, I think there are different divisions for genders for the same reason there are different divisions for age groups in youth competitions. 10-13 would almost always outperform strength based sports against 7-9 or 4-6. There are winners in each category so athletes perform against similar skill level. In this example the top performer is expected to come from the 10-13 group, but excellence should be rewarded to top performers in the lower categories as well.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While female leagues receive scholarship money and endorsements, I don't see them posing much of a financial threat to the male leagues. Male leagues attract much more advertising revenue and have much higher wages, which I think is fair.

I'm not saying they pose a threat to male leagues. They pose a threat to male athletes who are better than the women but not good enough to hang with the men, and in some cases like Wimbledon, women are paid the same despite bringing in fewer tickets, whose tickets cost less, and who games are a few to several hours shorter, allowing them to also play doubles so women there make more, despite not having to do as much for it.

We do reward excellence in the lower categories of age, but not equally to adults. We do reward world records among men and women equally though, and we don't really have age groups for the Olympics either, just a minimum age, which I believe is 14.

[–]KenaiStar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link