The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Kowani]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Based and litty.

i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

[Page]

Based and litty.

i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

[Crysuko]

i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

if you're implying the military-industrial complex has one neutrino of a fuck to give...

[Ostroeuropa]

This assumes 100% of the population would be conscripted, up from 50%. This is not a good view of it.

Instead, what happens is there is a target. Say, "We need 100,000 soldiers" and then those are called up based on a lottery.

100,000 people are going to be harmed either way. The change merely makes it so that it doesn't only happen to men. We're not doubling the number of people being conscripted because that's not how conscription works. We're doubling the pool of conscripts and ensuring equality.

Incidentally, in 2014, the USA tried to draft 14,250 men born in the 19th century due to a clerical error. After failing to receive adequate reason for their non-response, several thousand letters were sent out informing them of the legal consequences.

Only later did the government realize their mistake, once the post-office told them that these people were, you know. Dead.

Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Ideally you'd be right, but I think you are vastly overestimating the level of empathy society has for men. The only way this got passed was by arguing it was unjust to women, not that it was unjust to men, because society has a (censored) perspective where "It's unfair to women they don't get enslaved by the military, men are privileged by having this happen to them" is something we'll believe more readily than "It is unjust to enslave men". It's the consequence of allowing "patriarchy" feminists to influence culture for so long over so many decades with their inane and sexist theories.

[Galloism]

This assumes 100% of the population would be conscripted, up from 50%. This is not a good view of it.

Instead, what happens is there is a target. Say, "We need 100,000 soldiers" and then those are called up based on a lottery.

100,000 people are going to be harmed either way. The change merely makes it so that it doesn't only happen to men. We're not doubling the number of people being conscripted because that's not how conscription works. We're doubling the pool of conscripts and ensuring equality.

Incidentally, in 2014, the USA tried to draft 14,250 men born in the 19th century due to a clerical error. After failing to receive adequate reason for their non-response, several thousand letters were sent out informing them of the legal consequences.

Only later did the government realize their mistake, once the post-office told them that these people were, you know. Dead.

Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Unbelievably hard disagree.

Society just doesn’t care about bad things that happen to only to men as a class.

You can see this in numerous things: the treatment of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence by women, the sexist (de jure) treatment under law regarding male birth control, the fact 96-97% of those killed by police, and a whole host of other things. Nobody cares about the fact men are the ones suffering these things.

A boy being unable to go to college because of not signing up for the death list doesn’t tug at society’s heartstrings. Society screams he should know better.

A girl being unable to go to college for the same reason will get society mad. How could they do this to her?

This is one of the manifestations of the actor/object problem.

The path to repeal goes through making this equal, so the injustice will be felt by someone society gives a fuck about.

[Ostroeuropa]

Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Unbelievably hard disagree.

Society just doesn’t care about bad things that happen to only to men as a class.

You can see this in numerous things: the treatment of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence by women, the sexist (de jure) treatment under law regarding male birth control, the fact 96-97% of those killed by police, and a whole host of other things. Nobody cares about the fact men are the ones suffering these things.

A boy being unable to go to college because of not signing up for the death list doesn’t tug at society’s heartstrings. Society screams he should know better.

A girl being unable to go to college for the same reason will get society mad. How could they do this to her?

This is one of the manifestations of the actor/object problem.

The path to repeal goes through making this equal, so the injustice will be felt by someone society gives a fuck about.

I'll again dispute the idea that this is an actor/object problem because women are seen as actors when it comes to positive things, and men are seen as objects when it comes to positive things. The matrix in question is one that lionizes and celebrates womens agency and demonizes and villainizes mens agency.

When women use agency positively, society recognizes it. When men do, they are merely objects acted upon by their environment and the credit isn't mens, it's simply the product of a social environment. At it's worst, this is spun into demonizing men even further by taking that positive agency, claiming it *For women* and demonizing men for having "privilege" that afforded them the ability to use their agency positively. (So, example, a man cures cancer and we get weeks of seething and histrionic misandry from feminists about how a woman would have done it if men hadn't used their agency in such a negative and evil way to keep women out of scientific research. This is the extent to which there is a borderline pathological aversion to recognizing men as positive actors.). Flip when the agency is negative. Suddenly the woman is acted upon by patriarchy (Once again directing all negative sentiment towards men), but when a man does it, he is an independent actor, or it's still the fault of men as a class. Meanwhile, a woman who uses her agency positively is recognized and celebrated as validating this entire repulsive excercise and seen as proof of how this hate movement has "gotten good results".

Discussing it as an actor/object dichotomy is a way for the less openly misandrist feminists to try and conceive of the issue without acknowledging the fundamentally misandrist nature of what goes on. It is pandering to the same distorted view of the world that causes the problem in the first place. You need to grab them by the head, force their eyelids open, and rub their faces in it for them to see it, because simply calling it an actor/object dichotomy ignores this dynamic and allows them to continue to live in denial of reality. The truth of the matter is much more blunt, it is a hero/villain dichotomy, and it is a consequence of the ideological poison feminists have peddled in society for decades.

[Galloism]

Unbelievably hard disagree.

Society just doesn’t care about bad things that happen to only to men as a class.

You can see this in numerous things: the treatment of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence by women, the sexist (de jure) treatment under law regarding male birth control, the fact 96-97% of those killed by police, and a whole host of other things. Nobody cares about the fact men are the ones suffering these things.

A boy being unable to go to college because of not signing up for the death list doesn’t tug at society’s heartstrings. Society screams he should know better.

A girl being unable to go to college for the same reason will get society mad. How could they do this to her?

This is one of the manifestations of the actor/object problem.

The path to repeal goes through making this equal, so the injustice will be felt by someone society gives a fuck about.

I'll again dispute the idea that this is an actor/object problem because women are seen as actors when it comes to positive things, and men are seen as objects when it comes to positive things. The matrix in question is one that lionizes and celebrates womens agency and demonizes and villainizes mens agency.

When women use agency positively, society recognizes it. When men do, they are merely objects acted upon by their environment and the credit isn't mens. (At it's worst, this is spun into demonizing men even further by taking that positive agency, claiming it *For women* and demonizing men for having "privilege" that afforded them the ability to use their agency positively. So a man cures cancer and we get weeks of seething and histrionic misandry from feminists about how a woman would have done it if men hadn't used their agency in such a negative and evil way to keep women out of scientific research. This is the extent to which there is a borderline pathological aversion to recognizing men as positive actors.). Flip when the agency is negative. Suddenly the woman is acted upon by patriarchy (Once again directing all negative sentiment towards men), but when a man does it, he is an independent actor, or it's still the fault of men as a class.
Discussing it as an actor/object dichotomy is a way for the less openly misandrist feminists to try and conceive of the issue without acknowledging the fundamentally misandrist nature of what goes on. It is pandering to the same distorted view of the world that causes the problem in the first place.

You need to grab them by the head, force their eyelids open, and rub their faces in it for them to see it.

So, while you are correct that there is a segment of society that operates the way you just described, we can see the actor/object problem even in positive or neutral contexts when it comes to “normal” people.

Women are quite often sidelined when it comes to how much their input on a group project is recognized compared with men. You can see this in corporate America, even with how “progressive” it is.

There are also numerous historical examples last century (ie, going to the moon) where there were women doing critical work that didn’t get into the paper with the all male team that “made it happen”.

What you’re focusing on is the way feminism, by and large as a group (some individuals excepted), focused on the actor/object problem, which was as a women’s interests group first and equality group only by accident: maximizing women’s agency only when it benefits women, and minimizing it when it harms them.

[Ostroeuropa]

So, while you are correct that there is a segment of society that operates the way you just described, we can see the actor/object problem even in positive or neutral contexts when it comes to “normal” people.

Women are quite often sidelined when it comes to how much their input on a group project is recognized compared with men. You can see this in corporate America, even with how “progressive” it is.

There are also numerous historical examples last century (ie, going to the moon) where there were women doing critical work that didn’t get into the paper with the all male team that “made it happen”.

What you’re focusing on is the way feminism, by and large as a group (some individuals excepted), focused on the actor/object problem, which was as a women’s interests group first and equality group only by accident: maximizing women’s agency only when it benefits women, and minimizing it when it harms them.

I think we could use something more contemporary than 1959 dude.

A 20 year old at that point would be 82 by now. so while you can point to some living individuals who experienced the phenomanae you're describing in this example, they're so few in number as to be insignificant to the overall trend. How does the phenomanae actually impact living individuals?

[Galloism]

So, while you are correct that there is a segment of society that operates the way you just described, we can see the actor/object problem even in positive or neutral contexts when it comes to “normal” people.

Women are quite often sidelined when it comes to how much their input on a group project is recognized compared with men. You can see this in corporate America, even with how “progressive” it is.

There are also numerous historical examples last century (ie, going to the moon) where there were women doing critical work that didn’t get into the paper with the all male team that “made it happen”.

What you’re focusing on is the way feminism, by and large as a group (some individuals excepted), focused on the actor/object problem, which was as a women’s interests group first and equality group only by accident: maximizing women’s agency only when it benefits women, and minimizing it when it harms them.

I think we could use something more contemporary than 1959 dude.

A 20 year old at that point would be 82 by now. so while you can point to some living individuals who experienced the phenomanae you're describing in this example, they're so few in number as to be insignificant to the overall trend. How does the phenomanae actually impact living individuals?

The fact that black people were kept as slaves on plantations in the 1800s and before still affects the modern world. Understanding the history of things is part of understanding where we are now.

Do you think these things just go away in a generation like they never happened?

[Ostroeuropa]

I think we could use something more contemporary than 1959 dude.

A 20 year old at that point would be 82 by now. so while you can point to some living individuals who experienced the phenomanae you're describing in this example, they're so few in number as to be insignificant to the overall trend. How does the phenomanae actually impact living individuals?

The fact that black people were kept as slaves on plantations in the 1800s and before still affects the modern world. Understanding the history of things is part of understanding where we are now.

Do you think these things just go away in a generation like they never happened?

We haven't had black people impose a system of anti-white racism on society for over 50 years.
I think a better example to contemplate would be the protestant reformation and anti-catholic policies. Or the Russian revolution and its impact on the nobility oppressing Russians.

Go ask someone born in the USSR how much monarchical propaganda impacted their worldview and insist it can't have possibly gone away in a generation. These examples also highlight the absurdity of feminist arguments that women can't oppress men because of spurious reasons or appeals to history. Using the example of black people does not necessarily mean it is a relevant example, and there are other examples one can point to to support the point.

For instance;

When exactly did black supremacists become a norm in government?
When did protestant supremacists?
When did soviets?
When did feminists?

Seems straightforward enough to see which is the odd one out.

EDIT:

Another difference. The impact of slavery passes down generationally due to generational wealth. Women are not a seperate tribe without male ancestors. There are precisely zero women facing economic hardship as a direct inherited-wealth result of womens historical exclusion from the workplace.

[Fahran]

I actually disagree, there's a decent body of research from the US showing women in combat units leads to lesser results across the board. While I get the arguments made in favor of a gender neutral draft and at times might even have agreed with them it just seems to be a bad idea overall.

You don't need to put women into combat units after conscripting us then. The military needs a diverse array of skills. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, chemists, etc. That said, women have participated in combat roles in the past and nothing is preventing all-female units in times of crisis. Ideally, we don't get embroiled in a pointless war. But conscription is a good option for any state to have - and has been associated with citizenship for millennia.

Someone's been reading Heinlein.

Bold to assume I'd parrot a known degenerate and incorrigible libertarian.

And it was a bad idea there, it's a bad idea IRL.

It's actually not. As I mentioned in our previous discussions on conscription, the United States has employed it on numerous occasions to compete with similar fully mobilized countries in the waging of total war. We would not have been able to defeat the Nazis without conscription for instance. Not to mention a robust propaganda apparatus that suppressed journos significantly and promoted a state-sanctioned narrative about our allies and enemies. It's especially essential to have a consistent supply of manpower (womanpower?) in longer wars since months of repeated conflict will almost invariably contribute to PTSD if the soldiers aren't sociopaths. Limiting service to twelve months of active combat duty is thus likely for the best.

[Fahran]

i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

It's based in the sense that citizenship offers us both rights and responsibilities within the context of our communities. We have done much to redefine the role of women within our community to promote equality, and so this is a natural step. I don't view service as an evil. I view it as a responsibility for those citizens who benefit from the community - as most content citizens do.

[Fahran]

My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

We're not likely to fight another Vietnam War. Most of our allies that are seriously threatened our democracies terrified of being gobbled up by dictatorships. Taiwan, South Korea, and the Baltic States don't provide us with the same political factors that were present in South Vietnam. Mind you, I don't believe we should continue projecting our influence outward or propping up the neoliberal hegemony. But I suspect at least some of our leftist colleagues would howl if China or Russia began gaining power and propping up governments fashioned in their own image. Social liberalism would be weakened globally at that point.

And, no, conscription is not a form of slavery. Soldiers are not chattel. Soldiers have the benefits of full citizenship and enjoy a special status in many quarters. A slave doesn't get a medal for his labor. A slave doesn't get commemorated by her owners or supervisors. The fact that people view them as the same is a touch shocking honestly.

[Ostroeuropa]

My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

We're not likely to fight another Vietnam War. Most of our allies that are seriously threatened our democracies terrified of being gobbled up by dictatorships. Taiwan, South Korea, and the Baltic States don't provide us with the same political factors that were present in South Vietnam. Mind you, I don't believe we should continue projecting our influence outward or propping up the neoliberal hegemony. But I suspect at least some of our leftist colleagues would howl if China or Russia began gaining power and propping up governments fashioned in their own image. Social liberalism would be weakened globally at that point.

And, no, conscription is not a form of slavery. Soldiers are not chattel. Soldiers have the benefits of full citizenship and enjoy a special status in many quarters. A slave doesn't get a medal for his labor. A slave doesn't get commemorated by her owners or supervisors. The fact that people view them as the same is a touch shocking honestly.

I would be fine with all of what you posted if people on the conscription list were directly consulted on the institution of a draft and a referenda were held among them. At that point you can posit a collective responsibility and duty narrative. But folks outside the register telling others they have to go to war is not civic responsibility or duty or whatever, those are all just buzz words designed to mask the exploitation of one group by another group for selfish interests. If the moral case for a war and for drafting in that war is evident, it should be evident to those it will impact.

Why precisely should a government full of 60+ year olds who have never been drafted get to lecture about the civic responsibility of the draft to 20 year olds they are sending into a pointless war that those people do not support?

Conversely, facing a threat like china invading taiwan or the nazis again or some shit, there's a possibility the potential conscripts would *themselves* impose the dynamic by voting for it and saying "Yes, there is a collective responsibility here, and we are a part of that. While we might not be conscripted, we accept that we might be" and so on.

The notion of civic duty and collective responsibility being imposed on a group from outside of that group is frankly incoherent to me. The group imposing it on itself, I can agree with. I can see why if there were a majority vote among potential conscripts for conscription due to them concluding that a war is just and requires it, that there is a moral backing for enforcing it and punishing dissent. I do not see the moral value in this being imposed by people outside of this group, since as I said, it is either evidently a just war, in which case you can simply ask the conscripts, or it is not, and that is why you dare not ask them.

Bringing in such a modified version of the Ludlow ammendment would end my opposition to conscription.

[Stellar Colonies]

There's something wrong with the world when people have to plan out a way to get rid of an injustice by expanding it to another group to trigger a backlash against the practice instead of getting rid of it on the merit of how it is affecting a group it's already applied to for a long time.

[Saiwania]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMV3R8-EsSs

Alledgedly, the majority of young men these days in developed countries are seen as "unattactive" by the opposite sex primarily because they don't earn a lot of money or don't have money or because their physical traits/lifestyle isn't different/compelling enough compared to men who're either richer or older or both.

It makes sense what they're saying. If a woman earns too much, its supposedly almost a given that they'll never want some man who earns less and the high income men they'd want just aren't looking for a high income woman if she's too old or too focused on career progression.

My takeaway is that men should look for a woman who's poorer than them, or work on getting the income up before looking.

[Sundiata]

.
My takeaway is that men should look for a woman who's poorer than them, or work on getting the income up before looking.

If your wife makes a lot of money you should generally be making just as much if not more. It's not becoming of a man to have a disordered or effeminate attachment to pleasure. No women in her right mind would want a man who doesn't intend to give fully of himself and carry the cross of family, marriage, and society.

Do we want to have a meaningful life? Well, everything we do matters.

[Crysuko]

.
My takeaway is that men should look for a woman who's poorer than them, or work on getting the income up before looking.

If your wife makes a lot of money you should generally be making just as much if not more. It's not becoming of a man to have a disordered or effeminate attachment to pleasure. No women in her right mind would want a man who doesn't intend to give fully of himself and carry the cross of family, marriage, and society.

Do we want to have a meaningful life? Well, everything we do matters.

The existence of house husbands renders this moot. If you want to play the “should” game, then whatever. But don’t pretend female breadwinners don’t exist.

[Saiwania]

The existence of house husbands renders this moot. If you want to play the “should” game, then whatever. But don’t pretend female breadwinners don’t exist.

The point is that house husbands in general aren't seen as attractive. If a career woman stays with one, it is because she genuinely can't do any better because she's too old or unappealing to the men she'd probably be more attracted to. It is in the end, all who has looks, money, power, or all three. Your leverage is what matters.

[Odreria]

conscription is something that you do if you really need to

[Sundiata]

If your wife makes a lot of money you should generally be making just as much if not more. It's not becoming of a man to have a disordered or effeminate attachment to pleasure. No women in her right mind would want a man who doesn't intend to give fully of himself and carry the cross of family, marriage, and society.

Do we want to have a meaningful life? Well, everything we do matters.

The existence of house husbands renders this moot. If you want to play the “should” game, then whatever. But don’t pretend female breadwinners don’t exist.

Unfortunately they exist but it's not an ideal situation at all. Young men are falling behind and have a lot of slack to pick up.

[Isles of Eamhna]

If a career woman stays with one, it is because she genuinely can't do any better because she's too old or unappealing to the men she'd probably be more attracted to.

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman, m8? Do you happen to know any women personally, or are you just going off what you read about them on stormfront?

[Saiwania]

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman, m8? Do you happen to know any women personally, or are you just going off what you read about them on stormfront?

I know plenty on a long distance basis. Knowing anyone too local however, is most often contingent on having income and a commute and etc. set up. If I'm a NEET, it is better that people where I live don't know or don't figure that out.

These are broad generalities I'm speaking in, of course it don't apply to everyone. If its true it is on a "more often than not" basis.

[Dexterra]

Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

FWIW, the US does not necessarily practice conscription any longer. The American military has been entirely volunteer-based since the end of Vietnam. It would be political suicide for any commander-in-chief to dust off the draft unless there is some drastic, dire, WWIII-type emergency, in which case most men and women have bigger things to worry about than being drafted.

Also, 'conscientious objector' is still an option when men register for the Selective Service and I don't see why this won't be extended to women too

[Fahran]

I would be fine with all of what you posted if people on the conscription list were directly consulted on the institution of a draft and a referenda were held among them. At that point you can posit a collective responsibility and duty narrative. But folks outside the register telling others they have to go to war is not civic responsibility or duty or whatever, those are all just buzz words designed to mask the exploitation of one group by another group for selfish interests. If the moral case for a war and for drafting in that war is evident, it should be evident to those it will impact.

Why precisely should a government full of 60+ year olds who have never been drafted get to lecture about the civic responsibility of the draft to 20 year olds they are sending into a pointless war that those people do not support?

Because our political community encompasses people of all ages and, theoretically, offers each citizen a voice on the matter. If you don't want to get conscripted, stop voting for people who advocate hawkish policies and pray that your faction has the votes to carry the day. If not, accept your duty as a citizen when the state comes a-calling. And I really don't think the older generations, a good number of whom served or would have been eligible to be conscripted, is behaving hypocritically or asking us to do anything that they haven't also done. Not everything has to be a direct referendum. If we elect the guy who wants to bomb Syria, don't pull the surprised Pikachu Face when we wind up at war with Syria.

Mind you, I don't think we should employ the draft all willy-nilly either. I think it should be reserved for instances of existential or total war and should be accompanied by robust but temporary state control over the media to ensure the optimization of morale. As it was used in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. And one of those wars probably shouldn't have been fought, but alas for my opinions on such matters.