Mattopilos II wrote:Neither are truly advantaged at that point. Both are
living in a shitty setting,
(emphasis my own) Well, thats not quite true is it - one of them is dead after all
And let's be honest: which is worse between living shittily and dying happy?
This also isn't quite true - why would a conscript be happy? Maybe because he's being fed, but happy is an exaggeration.
And no, I am not saying soldiers had it better on the battlefield than women in the kitchen, but rather that 1. men weren't always in battle, and 2. WE DON'T WANT CONSCRIPTION AT ALL. This means women, AND men. And, if they had to serve, gender shouldn't be the foremost requirement to die on the battlefield (if at all).
Good. Neither does anyone here, aside from the odd Tradcon..
So, you want my answer? The answer is your question is loaded. I mean, REALLY loaded.
Maybe, but it's also pretty obvious what the answer is and you seem to be avoiding it.
I simply find it funny that you think that somehow feminists all think it fine that men die on the battlefield, because they weren't conscripted in the past.
I find it funny that: 1) You think with my track record on these pages I am implying "all" feminists given I have a demonstrable track record of recognising that not all feminists think x or y.
And 2) that you think Feminists care if it's on the
battlefield. There are plenty out there who would be more than happy if all men were killed. What, you believe #killallmen was a joke, in the same vein as rape jokes?
That is a load of shit. You also seem to think that itself means men can claim more oppression. It doesn't.
Come on, men on the field means no men in power? Ignore one and not the other? Does this mean you think that balances out, because women were safe in their kitchens at home, because these poor women can't serve for they would be a liability! If anything, it speaks of a benevolent sexism of men claiming women as weak, no?
No, that is a lie. Given my proven track record on these feminism threads I can easily demonstrate I wholeheartedly oppose the idea that "
advantage" or "oppression" is a binary or
zero sum game. I don't indulge in oppression olympics, and unlike intersectionalists, I don't indulge in the "progessive stack."
If you want to get critical over talking about a "load of shit" such as "balancing out" or "ignoring one and not the other" perhaps you should do some navel gazing, because all that bullshit comes from principles whose origin is firmly in the sect of intersectional feminism you've disclosed you are a disciple of. Yes, I know you don't personally, but you're the intersectionalist, and this crap comes from intersectionalism.
And for one suggesting I am being snarky, you seem to have a little of it too.
More than enough, but good thing is I can back my snark up with facts. In that last post you seem to have backed your snark up with falsehoods and character attacks that were easily proven to be baseless.