Advertisement
by Geoagorist Territory » Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:23 am
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:50 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Geoagorist Territory » Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:59 am
Galloism wrote: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.
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.
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:03 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
by Hirota » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:06 am
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.Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
This principle of male disposibility doesn't apply to war exclusively. Deaths in the workplace are almost exclusively male.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.
by Germanic Templars » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:06 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
by Hirota » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:12 am
I too can link to wikipedia and pretend you've not ignored large parts of the article you quoted.Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Geoagorist Territory » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:50 am
Just like you can't be against forced pregnancy without being against pregnancy in general?
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 wrote:I too can link to wikipedia[/url] and pretend you've not ignored large parts of the article you quoted.
This principle of male disposibility doesn't apply to war exclusively. Deaths in the workplace are almost exclusively male.
by Chestaan » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:56 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.Hirota wrote: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.
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:58 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Germanic Templars » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:16 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Geoagorist Territory » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:17 am
Galloism wrote:Keep in mind, you argued that people who argue against people being forced into combat based on their gender MUST be pacifists.
Yes, working class men are seen as disposable, how does that undermine anything?
by Irish socialist soviet republics » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:25 am
by The Grene Knyght » Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:46 am
Irish socialist soviet republics wrote: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.
[_★_]
(◕‿◕)
Currently
Reading
2015: x=-8.75,y=-6.56
2016: x=-8.88,y=-9.54
2017: x=-9.63,y=-9.90
2018: x=-9.88,y=-9.23
2019: x=-10.0,y=-9.90
2020: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
2021: x=-10.0,y=-10.0
FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM
Portal Nationalist | Proletarian MoralistPRO: Socialism, Communism, Internationalism, Revolution, Leninism.
NEUTRAL: Anarchism, Marxism-Leninism.
ANTI: Capitalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Fascists, Hyper-Sectarian Leftists.
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:12 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
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.
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:14 am
The Grene Knyght wrote:Strawman. Do feminists really support this, or is this just what you think feminists support?
by Chestaan » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:32 am
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by New Edom » Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:16 am
Galloism wrote:Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Des-Bal » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:27 pm
Mattopilos II wrote:
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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Irish socialist soviet republics wrote: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.
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:34 pm
The Grene Knyght wrote:Another one for the scoreboard (we really should make a scoreboard)
by Geoagorist Territory » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:36 pm
Galloism wrote:Geoagorist Territory wrote:
I did not.Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
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.
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:41 pm
Geoagorist Territory wrote:
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.
by Jello Biafra » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:50 pm
Geoagorist Territory wrote: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.
by Galloism » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:57 pm
Jello Biafra wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Aprinia, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Europa Undivided, Finchhurst, HISPIDA, Ifreann, Sarolandia, Simonia, USHALLNOTPASS
Advertisement