Vassenor wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Being raped isn't strictly necessary if we're going to entertain the core of his argument, which i'm prepared to.
In the event of environmental catastrophe and extinction and so on, conscripting women for the survival of the nation seems as permissible as conscripting men, it is merely that the form of conscription differs in that it is forced pregnancy under artificial insemination.
This view is also important to casting many of the examples for claims women were historically oppressed into their proper light. Women were conscripted and not in control over their bodies for national and tribal interest, same as men were at the time. It's just that their bodies were more useful to the collective in a different way than mens were.
The manner this was implemented was through arranged familial bonds and so on, but it's important to note that they did not have technological alternatives. A modern incarnation of the practice would probably be state run, far more clinical and detached, not involve sex, and not seeking to create families, but to maximize reproduction rates.
This view of the situation reveals that modern US men actually experience to struggles of the handsmaids tale, but US women don't, especially when you consider that some men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it by our system, which forms a more direct comparison.
So I take it you can provide examples of that "men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it" then.
It's Ostro, and if I know one thing about Ostro, is that he probably didn't entirely make that up. It's likely that he can cite at least one real case of that happening.
It's still a rather... umm... repulsive-looking thing he's doing, piggybacking off an incel apologists' shitty ideas to make an MRA argument.