The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Geoagorist Territory]

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

[Galloism]

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

This post makes no sense.

You can object to people being forced to fight and die against their will on the basis of their gender without being a pacifist.

[Geoagorist Territory]

This post makes no sense.

You can object to people being forced to fight and die against their will on the basis of their gender without being a pacifist.

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means. To quote Wikipedia:

The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military.

Secondly and more importantly, if you're not against war then it's not bad per se for people to die in war, as that's part of the definition of war (people dying). And if it's not bad per se for people to die in war, then the whole idea of it being female privilege makes no sense.

If you are against people dying in war, then I question how you can say you're not against war.

[Galloism]

This post makes no sense.

You can object to people being forced to fight and die against their will on the basis of their gender without being a pacifist.

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means. To quote Wikipedia:

The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military.

So just longer than any of you mortals have been alive.

Secondly and more importantly, if you're not against war then it's not bad per se for people to die in war, as that's part of the definition of war (people dying). And if it's not bad per se for people to die in war, then the whole idea of it being female privilege makes no sense.

If you are against people dying in war, then I question how you can say you're not against war.

Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?

[Hirota]

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Not an MRA, but examples where females enjoy advantages are supposed to illustrate how privilege isn't supposed to be played as a binary game where you add up all the areas where men have advantages, and where you add up all the areas where women have advantages and work out which one is the more oppressed. Oppression Olympics bullshit doesn't help anyone.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

This principle of male disposibility doesn't apply to war exclusively. Deaths in the workplace are almost exclusively male.

[Germanic Templars]

This post makes no sense.

You can object to people being forced to fight and die against their will on the basis of their gender without being a pacifist.

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means. To quote Wikipedia:

The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military.

Secondly and more importantly, if you're not against war then it's not bad per se for people to die in war, as that's part of the definition of war (people dying). And if it's not bad per se for people to die in war, then the whole idea of it being female privilege makes no sense.

If you are against people dying in war, then I question how you can say you're not against war.

Actually there have been bloodless wars in the past, in fact on of the definitions of war is: a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

So trade wars, information wars, price wars, etc..

[Hirota]

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means. To quote Wikipedia:

The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military.

I too can link to wikipedia and pretend you've not ignored large parts of the article you quoted.

[Geoagorist Territory]

Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?

That's part of definition of war, comrade. Armed conflict, leading in death.

Actually there have been bloodless wars in the past, in fact on of the definitions of war is: a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

So trade wars, information wars, price wars, etc..

This is not the traditional definition of war, but okay. I don't see how it changes the point.

I too can link to wikipedia[/url] and pretend you've not ignored large parts of the article you quoted.

Yes I'm aware conscription existed before then, thanks. Do you have an actual point? Perhaps you're trying to suggest that the quoted portion of the article is incorrect? If so, I'd like to know why.

This principle of male disposibility doesn't apply to war exclusively. Deaths in the workplace are almost exclusively male.

I find it ironic that masculist (if you're not an MRA, that leaves masculist, who tend to be better, am I correct?) opponents of the wage gap point to female career choices as evidence of non-discrimination (Setting aside whether it exists, which to be honest I'm neutral on, this ignores the fact that the chosen careers being lower paying is largely cultural in causes and that women disportionately choose different careers because of culture...Culture isn't something that's above criticism) but shift their arguments in career choices for men as a cultural evil leading to their deaths.

There's not even a conscription argument to be made here, as career choices are voluntary.

I'm not really sure what exactly the suggested solution to dangerous careers is supposed to be. Promote gender equality in dangerous careers? Why would women dying too be good? And any rate, some feminists are already promoting this. Perhaps the suggestion is some form of radical labor reform that makes things safer.

At any rate, if career choices indicates the disposability of men, then it also indicates the disposability of the working class as this happens solely to workers, but if that's the case then the latter undermines the former as you cannot separate the two.

[Chestaan]

Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?

That's part of definition of war, comrade. Armed conflict, leading in death.

Actually there have been bloodless wars in the past, in fact on of the definitions of war is: a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

So trade wars, information wars, price wars, etc..

This is not the traditional definition of war, but okay. I don't see how it changes the point.

I too can link to wikipedia[/url] and pretend you've not ignored large parts of the article you quoted.

Yes I'm aware conscription existed before then, thanks. Do you have an actual point? Perhaps you're trying to suggest that the quoted portion of the article is incorrect? If so, I'd like to know why.

This principle of male disposibility doesn't apply to war exclusively. Deaths in the workplace are almost exclusively male.

I find it ironic that masculist (if you're not an MRA, that leaves masculist, who tend to be better, am I correct?) opponents of the wage gap point to female career choices as evidence of non-discrimination (Setting aside whether it exists, which to be honest I'm neutral on, this ignores the fact that the chosen careers being lower paying is largely cultural in causes and that women disportionately choose different careers because of culture...Culture isn't something that's above criticism) but shift their arguments in career choices for men as a cultural evil leading to their deaths.

There's not even a conscription argument to be made here, as career choices are voluntary.

I'm not really sure what exactly the suggested solution to dangerous careers is supposed to be. Promote gender equality in dangerous careers? Why would women dying too be good? And any rate, some feminists are already promoting this. Perhaps the suggestion is some form of radical labor reform that makes things safer.

At any rate, if career choices indicates the disposability of men, then it also indicates the disposability of the working class as this happens solely to workers, but if that's the case then the latter undermines the former as you cannot separate the two.

Yes, working class men are seen as disposable, how does that undermine anything?

[Galloism]

Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?

That's part of definition of war, comrade. Armed conflict, leading in death.

Keep in mind, you argued that people who argue against people being forced into combat based on their gender MUST be pacifists.

With that in mind, the logical inference is that people who argue against people being forced into reproduction based on their gender MUST be for human extinction..

So, are all pro-choice people against reproduction in general?

[Germanic Templars]

Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?

That's part of definition of war, comrade. Armed conflict, leading in death.

Actually there have been bloodless wars in the past, in fact on of the definitions of war is: a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

So trade wars, information wars, price wars, etc..

This is not the traditional definition of war, but okay. I don't see how it changes the point.

You said and I quote"..people to die in war, as that's part of the definition of war (people dying)."

I am merely correcting your fallacy that people die in war. And traditional definition doesn't matter since war is war and is usually based off a struggle between two factions.

[Geoagorist Territory]

Keep in mind, you argued that people who argue against people being forced into combat based on their gender MUST be pacifists.

I did not. But if your argument is solely against conscription (or conscription "based on gender"), then the grounds for arguing men dying in war throughout history by itself indicates female privilege becomes non-existent. "Oh but I only meant armies that used conscription when I used my broad generalizing narrative of history", okay fine but admit your case becomes weaker.

Yes, working class men are seen as disposable, how does that undermine anything?

Quote only the sections you're responding to. Otherwise that's bloated.

To answer your question, that undermines the position that men simpliciter are disposable, rather men of a particular class. And if we admit class as an important consideration, we admit gender cannot be a universal category of privilege, and "men are disposable" becomes an oversimplification.

I'm actually perfectly fine rejecting the concept of universal privilege, as it's non-essential to my views, however if you can't let it go it in the case of men's career choices it simply becomes everything you were critiquing in the concept of patriarchy.

[Irish socialist soviet republics]

This topic like Femminisim is absolute cancer.
You people say that you want equality while complaining about muh patriarchy and then you want more rights then men even though you already have equal rights. please just do the world​ a favour and kill yourselves.

[The Grene Knyght]

This topic like Femminisim is absolute cancer. You people say that you want equality while complaining about muh patriarchy...

Have you even read anything from this thread? A lot of people on it don't even support feminism, and almost everyone is critical of it to some degree, or critical of some aspects of it.

...and then you want more rights then men even though you already have equal rights.

Strawman. Do feminists really support this, or is this just what you think feminists support?

please just do the world​ a favour and kill yourselves.

Suggest you read the rules of the forum before posting.

---

Another one for the scoreboard (we really should make a scoreboard)

[Galloism]

Keep in mind, you argued that people who argue against people being forced into combat based on their gender MUST be pacifists.

I did not.

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

This is a forum.

But if your argument is solely against conscription (or conscription "based on gender"), then the grounds for arguing men dying in war throughout history by itself indicates female privilege becomes non-existent. "Oh but I only meant armies that used conscription when I used my broad generalizing narrative of history", okay fine but admit your case becomes weaker.

A lot of armies used conscription throughout history when engaged in war. Most of them did so, in fact, as far as I know. It's actually a relatively modern phenomenon to have an all-volunteer military.

It doesn't weaken the case at all, because it was never about "men dying in war" as female privilege. It's about "men being forced against their will to die in war while women are exempt" that was female privilege. The notion "men die in war" was the argument from which female privilege is ascertained is at its core either woefully ignorant of the arguments being made or a deliberate strawman.

[Galloism]

Strawman. Do feminists really support this, or is this just what you think feminists support?

Many feminists do, although I would hesitate to use terms like "all" or "most". I've provided copious examples thereof.

[Chestaan]

Yes, working class men are seen as disposable, how does that undermine anything?

Quote only the sections you're responding to. Otherwise that's bloated.

To answer your question, that undermines the position that men simpliciter are disposable, rather men of a particular class. And if we admit class as an important consideration, we admit gender cannot be a universal category of privilege, and "men are disposable" becomes an oversimplification.

I'm actually perfectly fine rejecting the concept of universal privilege, as it's non-essential to my views, however if you can't let it go it in the case of men's career choices it simply becomes everything you were critiquing in the concept of patriarchy.

Yes but working class women are not seen as equally disposable. Society thinks nothing of sending men off to die in war, or to work in dangerous jobs while it expects nothing of the sort of women of any class. You need to be both male and working class to be discriminated against in this way, if either of the two conditions are not met then you don't get viewed as disposable. Therefore, in this case both women and rich men are privileged.

[New Edom]

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

This post makes no sense.

You can object to people being forced to fight and die against their will on the basis of their gender without being a pacifist.

Or ven just ackwnoledge it as a fact, that men have been obliged to fight for their society to a far greater extent than women. In fact it could be argued that both men and women have been called upon to sacrifice their bodies in different ways.

[Des-Bal]

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it. You seemed to imply men has it bad back then... and only men? Just men? I think there is little wrong with that addition.

Already no. Already fucking no. Essentially every part of this is wrong. I laid out, very clearly my position and you made an impressive effort to avoid it. I broke it down like a fucking algebra problem and you still chose not to get it. We have society assigning roles and responsibilities based on gender and doing so in a way that fucks everybody. Framing that as men oppressing women is stupid and deaf to simple realities.

[The Blaatschapen]

This topic like Femminisim is absolute cancer.
You people say that you want equality while complaining about muh patriarchy and then you want more rights then men even though you already have equal rights. please just do the world​ a favour and kill yourselves.

*** Warned for trolling ***

Read the rules. No suggesting that other people should kill themselves.

The Blaatschapen - NationStates Moderator

[The Blaatschapen]

Another one for the scoreboard (we really should make a scoreboard)

No, "we" should not.

The Blaatschapen - NationStates Moderator

[Geoagorist Territory]

I did not.

I'm uncertain if this "men always fought and died in armies throughout history, therefore female privilege" idea is some sort of radical pacifist MRA thing.

Because if you're not a pacifist against war the idea makes zero sense in the first place. Are MRAs pacifists now? If not, then the argument fails, but on the other hand if they are then they must admit the problem is war and not female privilege per se.

This is a forum.

Yes, I argued they must be pacifists or their argument makes no sense, and even if they were it still doesn't make much sense. I never argued that they were necessarily pacifists, hence "I'm uncertain" qualifier, I wanted clarification on whether they were.

Don't assume what I meant.

It doesn't weaken the case at all, because it was never about "men dying in war" as female privilege. It's about "men being forced against their will to die in war while women are exempt" that was female privilege. The notion "men die in war" was the argument from which female privilege is ascertained is at its core either woefully ignorant of the arguments being made or a deliberate strawman.

Okay fine, let's assume conscription was near-universal throughout all history. In which case, are you against conscription in general or only "conscription based on gender"? In either case, phrasing it as "female privilege" doesn't make much sense. If it's something for both genders to avoid, then equality in conscription is an evil even worse if it means more people dying. But if it's something for both genders to be forced into equally as conscription is good, then the argument that male conscription is an example male privilege becomes even stronger than the inverse, as conscription is a good and not a bad.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is a forum.

Yes, I argued they must be pacifists or their argument makes no sense, and even if they weren't it still doesn't make much sense. I never argued that they were necessarily pacifists, hence "I'm uncertain" qualifier, I wanted clarification on whether they were.

Don't assume what I meant.

It doesn't weaken the case at all, because it was never about "men dying in war" as female privilege. It's about "men being forced against their will to die in war while women are exempt" that was female privilege. The notion "men die in war" was the argument from which female privilege is ascertained is at its core either woefully ignorant of the arguments being made or a deliberate strawman.

Okay fine, let's assume conscription was near-universal throughout all history. In which case, are you against conscription in general or only "conscription based on gender"? In either case, phrasing it as "female privilege" doesn't make much sense. If it's something for both genders to avoid, then equality in conscription is an evil even worse if it means more people dying. But if it's something for both genders to be forced into equally as conscription is good, then the argument that male conscription is an example male privilege becomes even stronger than the inverse, as conscription is a good and not a bad.

Do you think women being forced into the kitchen is bad, or good?
Is it an example of female privilege?

Why, do you think nobody should ever cook? Clearly cooking is necessary, right? So it's female privilege by your logic.

[Jello Biafra]

I'm not really sure what exactly the suggested solution to dangerous careers is supposed to be. Promote gender equality in dangerous careers? Why would women dying too be good? And any rate, some feminists are already promoting this. Perhaps the suggestion is some form of radical labor reform that makes things safer.

As a feminist, I would say that it is primarily male business owners who are putting men into dangerous situations, and that this means that it is primarily men who are making men disposable in the workplace; further, I would say that an increase of women in business ownership would lead to a different set of choices being made (because men and women are socialized differently), including an increase in workplace safety.
As a communist, I would say that radical labor reform is also necessary, because even if female business owners are kinder and gentler, they're still capitalists and have incentives to cut costs, including workplace safety costs.

[Galloism]

As a feminist, I would say that it is primarily male business owners who are putting men into dangerous situations, and that this means that it is primarily men who are making men disposable in the workplace; further, I would say that an increase of women in business ownership would lead to a different set of choices being made, including an increase in workplace safety.
As a communist, I would say that radical labor reform is also necessary, because even if female business owners are kinder and gentler, they're still capitalists and have incentives to cut costs, including workplace safety costs.

There's a hell of a lot of claims in here with at least one overtly sexist one. I won't go into the communist bit, because that's significantly OT, but let's have evidence for the three largest suspect claims.

1) That it's men making men disposable.
2) That women who are owners treat men as less disposable/reduce workplace injuries, when controlling for career field.
3) That women are, in fact, "kinder and gentler" bosses compared to men in the same fields.

That last one is the overtly sexist one, btw.