-

[Imperializt Russia]

So you want women to just shut up. Typical I suppose, but it's 2016 and that kind of attitude is about 2 centuries out of date.

Feminists will never shut up, not for a year, not for a minute and no amount of male entitlement will change this.

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Tell me, Nat, why should I believe you when you say you aren't sexist if you can't even be intellectually honest on the most basic of levels?

What you do is as much balance as me lighting my hair on fire is a style.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminists /=/ Women, so you're being a disingenuous person as usual.
You also fail to engage with the rest of the post, probably because you aren't able to pretend it's sexist, nor spread lies and misinformation in response to it.

I also never claimed I wanted them to shut up. Merely what my response would be.
So you're a disingenuous person on two different levels there.

Tell me, Nat, why should I believe you when you say you aren't sexist if you can't even be intellectually honest on the most basic of levels?

What you do is as much balance as me lighting my hair on fire is a style.

I've never gone out of my way to cover up or deny women as victims of domestic abuse or rape or the extent thereof.
I've not denied misogyny exists.
I've not -

You get the point.
So while your line was pithy, it wasn't accurate. I'm underselling.

[Imperializt Russia]

That doesn't make what you do balance. Even if all of it was correct and desperately needed telling.

If I walk on stage and kick Donald Trump in the nuts for being a lying cunt and racist fuckwit to boot, it'll be bloody funny, but that's not "balance".

[The Rich Port]

That doesn't make what you do balance. Even if all of it was correct and desperately needed telling.

If I walk on stage and kick Donald Trump in the nuts for being a lying cunt and racist fuckwit to boot, it'll be bloody funny, but that's not "balance".

It would only be right... But then you'd still have to go to jail for assault... And a hate crime, if the social justice warrior MRAs/conservatives have their way.

[Natapoc]

That doesn't make what you do balance. Even if all of it was correct and desperately needed telling.

If I walk on stage and kick Donald Trump in the nuts for being a lying cunt and racist fuckwit to boot, it'll be bloody funny, but that's not "balance".

It would only be right... But then you'd still have to go to jail for assault... And a hate crime, if the social justice warrior MRAs/conservatives have their way.

In no sane world should it be a crime to kick Donald Trump in the nuts.

[The Rich Port]

It would only be right... But then you'd still have to go to jail for assault... And a hate crime, if the social justice warrior MRAs/conservatives have their way.

In no sane world should it be a crime to kick Donald Trump in the nuts.

Well... This ain't a sane world, is it?

[MERIZoC]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

The reason is of course the feminist illuminati who control our government which is why women have always been treated so well by the state.

[Mike the Progressive]

Simple. If we all have equal rights, then it is only necessary that we all should be equally serving our country in my opinion. The draft is a horrible thing that either kills you or completely destroys your life upon your return, yet this forced military service is only for males. Why shouldn't women have to sign up for the draft? What are your thoughts on this, NSG?

Because men don't allow them? And they've served in combat roles anyway. I recall a NYT article that talked how a quarter of troops in combat situations in Iraq weren't technically combat soldiers and were females. The big difference is they got paid less, less chance to advance, etc.

Hell, we should have passed the ERA back in the day. Or even now.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

The reason is of course the feminist illuminati who control our government which is why women have always been treated so well by the state.

There is no The Reason. It's a multitude of prejudices/discriminatory attitudes and factors against both genders, yes, some caused and strengthened by feminism, but many predating it.

[Mike the Progressive]

First of all, the draft should not exist.

To answer your question, patriarchal gender roles and misogynist beliefs are the historical reason why women were seen as unfit for service and thus not subject to the draft. The military is a very conservative institution and they are just now starting to allow women to have equal roles as men.

The draft will eventually catch up.

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

It is absolutely the reason.

[Saiwania]

If I walk on stage and kick Donald Trump in the nuts for being a lying cunt and racist fuckwit to boot, it'll be bloody funny, but that's not "balance".

The crowds at Trump rallies wouldn't even let you get near the stage. They sort of have a track record of beating up the opposition if they show up. It is best to let them be.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

It is absolutely the reason.

The reason is, as I explained, the demographic issues of losing large numbers of females in war. A society can lose a huge number of men without a great dent in their population, but if they lose a large number of women, the next generation will be considerably smaller.

[The Rich Port]

That's A reason, but it is not The reason, despite how much you wish it were so.

It is absolutely the reason.

That's why there were freaky amazon kingdoms and tribes in Africa run and for the exclusive privilege of women, right? Staffed by warrior women who became infamous for their brutality?

Because women are naturally weaker than men in combat and in positions of power?

[Imperializt Russia]

It is absolutely the reason.

That's why there were freaky amazon kingdoms and tribes in Africa run and for the exclusive privilege of women, right? Staffed by warrior women who became infamous for their brutality?

Because women are naturally weaker than men in combat and in positions of power?

Non-western cultures don't hold 19th century western values, shock horror.

[The Rich Port]

That's why there were freaky amazon kingdoms and tribes in Africa run and for the exclusive privilege of women, right? Staffed by warrior women who became infamous for their brutality?

Because women are naturally weaker than men in combat and in positions of power?

Non-western cultures don't hold 19th century western values, shock horror.

It's not even that, it's the delusion of this grand conspiracy of women trying to take men's rights away that really twerks me off.

This whole GamerGate non-sense has gotten out of hand, and I say that as a guy that supported it in the first place.

They were a joke until they had a scapegoat.

Can you believe there's been a Men's Rights Movement since the fucking 1980's?

I betcha nobody even fucking noticed until all this Tumblr nonsense Ostro ranted at me until he forced me to block him several months ago.

Also, trust me... Compared to those African tribes, we got it amazing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Non-western cultures don't hold 19th century western values, shock horror.

It's not even that, it's the delusion of this grand conspiracy of women trying to take men's rights away that really twerks me off.

This whole GamerGate non-sense has gotten out of hand, and I say that as a guy that supported it in the first place.

They were a joke until they had a scapegoat.

Can you believe there's been a Men's Rights Movement since the fucking 1980's?

I betcha nobody even fucking noticed until all this Tumblr nonsense Ostro ranted at me until he forced me to block him several months ago.

Also, trust me... Compared to those African tribes, we got it amazing.

Where did I allege conspiracy. Do you think conservatives conspire to collapse the economy?
No, they're just wrong and fucking everything up through incompetence and ideological zeal.

You've already demonstrated once you know absolutely nothing about gamergate, and you're apparently keen to do so again. THAT'S why you blocked me, by the way. Here's the last post I sent to you:

I didn't get my facts about GG from the media. I got my facts about GG from people who were apparently from GG. None of them were positive. In much the same way this one's turning out to be, Ostro.

It could also be that this thing you're going on about is obscure and I most people who don't frequent the Internet regularly wouldn't know what it was. I would appreciate it if you didn't immediately assume I'm just ignorant of what's occurring in game journalism, considering I'm particularly concerned and observant of when a video game reporter's being a corrupt idiot.

Also... I'm confused. You don't care what the article like these say... But... You still write to the companies to do... what, exactly?

I thought the whole point of GG was that you DID care about what the article says, especially if the writer is having his wheels greased by publishers.

We wouldn't care about a specific article. It isn't indicative of a pattern, nor are it's contents likely to be interesting.
If a site regularly does that kind of shit they're likely to end up on the blacklist, which means we'll be mailing the companies supporting them, outlining the cases of unethical behavior at the company, and recommending they pull support before it reflects badly on them.
It's worked so far.

I'm not calling you ignorant about gaming journalism.
I'm calling you ignorant about gamergate. You admitted as much that you don't listen to what people say.
And the fact is, gamergate is a large part of the discussion on game journalism.
So you're ignorant of a large part of what's going on in game journalism.

You can't really be "Concerned and observant" if you're admittedly ignoring a bunch of stuff.

I don't really care if you don't appreciate me pointing out the obvious.

I'm well aware of the goings on of American politics. I just immediately tune out whenever a republican talks. What's that? Wall on the mexican border? Dunno anything about that.
How dare you insinuate i'm ignorant.

I might be an asshole, but i'm at least listening to all sides of the argument. Like I said, you should probably go to kotakuinaction and ask for a recap on happenings.
You can go right back to ignoring everything we say afterward, and you'll be well informed for a month or two.

You got butthurt about me calling out your ignorance and presumption to talk about that which you know nothing in a thread devoted to the topic. Tahar even calls you out on this next post.


Yes, there's been an MRM since the 80s. It's been consistently blocked by feminists from attaining progress. Hence the anti-feminist streak.
The internet allowed us to come into our own and force mens issues to actually be discussed as well as shed light on the bigotry of the feminist movement.

So that's, once again, two levels of an SJW being a dishonest liar. You talk about conspiracy where none was alleged despite me repeatedly correcting people on this, (notably, I bet you don't think patriarchy is a conspiracy, revealing your bias and intellectual dishonesty), and two, pretending you had a non-hilarious reason to block me.

If you are deliberately "blissfully uninformed" about GamerGate, then you probably should not be blindly walking into a thread about GamerGate and make bold assertions about GamerGate, as you did:

In any case, the fact you know nothing about gamergate and see fit to bring it up here is kind of baffling. What possible connection could gamergate have to the topic of women and the draft?

I can understand why an SJW would think it does. Because your worldview is comically sith like and you aren't capable of seperating different camps of people who oppose you in your mind beyond an "US-THEM" category, and so think Gamergate has an official stance on gender issues akin to an amalgamation of traditionalists, MRAs, and the red pill.

But what would a NON-SJW think?
They'd think it was fucking off topic. That you have this problem should signal to everyone precisely why they should take you as seriously as I do. Your view of the world cannot be coherent if you operate in such a way.

"Conservatives support abolishing private property and exterminating the jews. I know cos they both argue against me."

I'm still laughing. You'd think i'd get used to this shit, but no. It still catches me off guard.

[Valystria]

What possible connection could gamergate have to the topic of women and the draft?

I want to know about the connection between the elves and the Nazis.

[Ostroeuropa]

What possible connection could gamergate have to the topic of women and the draft?

I want to know about the connection between the elves and the Nazis.

Incidentally, that movie has an elf-nazi supersoldier, and he is, indeed, bested in combat by a woman. Food for thought.

[Infected Mushroom]

Female privilege.

We don't like to talk about it, but it does exist in certain respects.

Historically, the draft simply excluded you if you were female. The approach wasn't a gender-neutral test ''Do you meet thresholds of physical rigour necessary for armed service'' with the end result being that most females were excluded through the test. No, the draft just as a matter of presumption, excludes you from the risk of getting draft just because you are a girl. In the Vietnam war, men lived in fear of being drafted into the jungles to die (and ironically, because of patriarchal leanings of society, it was seen as ''un-manly'' if you admitted to this to the public in general; even those who were protesting the war had to frame it in terms of the general unethical-ness of sending people to die as opposed to the human fear of being drafted and sent to a place where you could be bombed). Meanwhile, the women were completely free from this terror.

[Sun Lands]

Because women weren't permitted to serve in front line combat, and the draftees were being sent to the front lines?

[Alvecia]

Female privilege.

We don't like to talk about it, but it does exist in certain respects.

Historically, the draft simply excluded you if you were female. The approach wasn't a gender-neutral test ''Do you meet thresholds of physical rigour necessary for armed service'' with the end result being that most females were excluded through the test. No, the draft just as a matter of presumption, excludes you from the risk of getting draft just because you are a girl. In the Vietnam war, men lived in fear of being drafted into the jungles to die (and ironically, because of patriarchal leanings of society, it was seen as ''un-manly'' if you admitted to this to the public in general; even those who were protesting the war had to frame it in terms of the general unethical-ness of sending people to die as opposed to the human fear of being drafted and sent to a place where you could be bombed). Meanwhile, the women were completely free from this terror.

If there's female priviledge in this case, then it is not women who are perpetuating it.

[Tekeristan]

Just don't have a draft, done. We're a democracy.

Whether or not women can serve in combat roles?
If they can pass the same physical standards that men have to go through.
That's equality.

[Caracasus]

I believe that in the UK there's plans to allow women to fight on the frontlines. Given that modern conflict seems to have rather blurred the concept of frontline this appears more of an acknowledgement of how things have changed than anything else. The closest the UK's had to the draft in recent decades would probably be national service - and frankly only a handful of fruitcakes want that bought back.

I'd be really surprised if the US actually used the draft again. Unpopular wars are even more unpopular when you're sending folks who didn't even sign up to be soldiers out to die. Plus, as far as I'm aware, modern armies and conflicts just don't require the massive manpower that was needed back when the draft was used. It'd be impractical, unpopular and not that effective.

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe that in the UK there's plans to allow women to fight on the frontlines. Given that modern conflict seems to have rather blurred the concept of frontline this appears more of an acknowledgement of how things have changed than anything else.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[Caracasus]

I believe that in the UK there's plans to allow women to fight on the frontlines. Given that modern conflict seems to have rather blurred the concept of frontline this appears more of an acknowledgement of how things have changed than anything else.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Sure. Modern conflict has changed significantly from the idea of front line warfare - the idea that these two armies will engage at this point here, for example - a kind of conflict that is at its most extreme trench warfare (like WW1) where you've got maybe a mile or so of no-man's land, trenches and not as much danger or things happening behind that. In modern conflicts (think Afghanistan for example), fighting tends to be asymmetrical, with conflict happening pretty much all over the place. You don't really have an advancing force in the same way, and neither does your enemy so it's mostly used to describe areas where there's a lot of fighting. The difference being of course that non-frontline soldiers are at a much higher risk, and need to be able to fight, a lot more than they would have been a few decades ago.