Almost every feminist I know doesn't bother arguing that women should be added to selective service because they instead argue such things should be abolished entirely. The whole "you don't see feminists trying to get women drafted!" thing is a MRA strawman.
Almost every feminist I know doesn't bother arguing that women should be added to selective service because they instead argue such things should be abolished entirely. The whole "you don't see feminists trying to get women drafted!" thing is a MRA strawman.
No, but you do see them arguing to have women allowed in frontline combat roles.
Mostly because nobody has been drafted since fucking Vietnam, and nobody is likely to be ever, ya fuckin' morons.
Or simply that boys are simply socialized to be little shits as kids (boys will be boys, after all) and have much lower general expectations of discipline and behavior. .
So when the stats look bad for women it's a result of institutional sexism keeping them down, but when they are bad for men it's because they just aren't good enough? Interesting.
Way to completely misrepresent everything I just said!
The expectations placed on us play a huge role in every aspect of our development. A huge part of feminism is identifying and deconstructing the pressures that shape us at a young age with regards to gender roles, and pretty much any feminist will tell you it cuts both ways with startling regularity. A lot of memes perpetrated in regards to genders roles, even those that are positive about men, end up hurting us. For example, the idea that the stupid shit we all do at a young age is, for males, just "boyish mischief", while the same tolerance is not extended to girls, is probably part of why young girls do better in school at a young age. Nobody bothers to teach boys to socialize because we are expected to compete, which increasingly serves us ill in the modern world. Or, to go back to your previous example, men are the stronger, better gender, so of course we are the only ones who can fight, and thus we end up dying in the trenches.
Gender roles and patriarchy hurts everyone. Feminism is not the movement of women against men; it is the movement of people against stupid ideas about gender roles. It's feminism because the core of those dumb ideas usually revolve around women as inferior, as property, or as undeserving of agency or power, but men can be just as hurt by those same expectations regardless of their original intent.
Feminism is not perfect. For fucks sake, the first wave was basically an entirely racist, classist movement, the second wave was batshit wacky in all sorts of hilarious ways, and the third wave has yet to find a coherent voice. But I have seen too many of my friends get hurt by the systems of oppression feminist stands against, and systems like it, to even consider renouncing the idea.
If you weren't so convinced that the only reason women could possibly want to express greviences over how society is run is because they haven't been able to get men killed off like they used to, you'd see you probably already agree with most tenets of real feminism, which happens to look almost nothing like the crazy bullshit you have convinced yourself feminism is.
The problem with defining feminism is that no two people have the same idea about what feminism is. What you describe as a movement promoting equality between the sexes I would call egalitarianism, or humanism. The word Feminist has been similarly associated with people who I admire deeply, and people who I cannot understand why any would admire. It's been changed and repackaged and re-imagined so many times that nobody can really agree on what it really is now.
So if your problem is with the word, shouldn't you not use it? Find a better, more applicable word? And just because someone has a different definition of a word doesn't make him/her right. You take them to the dictionary, sit them down, and read the definition to them. Just because some talking head misrepresents information doesn't mean it's a difference in definition. It means he/she is either mistaken or a manipulative dick. Consensus is exactly the answer we need and the only way you're going to get that is if you point out EVERY time someone misuses, misdefines, or misrepresents a point. (Which I'm sure I've done somewhere within this comment.)
Almost every feminist I know doesn't bother arguing that women should be added to selective service because they instead argue such things should be abolished entirely. The whole "you don't see feminists trying to get women drafted!" thing is a MRA strawman.
The whole "we don't argue in favor of women being drafted because we want to abolish the draft period" is a feminist strawman as well. A better argument should be "we're against the draft and think it should be completely abolished, but if we have to have it, then it has to apply equally to both sexes."
No, but you do see them arguing to have women allowed in frontline combat roles.
That is a valid point. They're getting better about that to an extent since they're now allowing women to serve as combat pilots. Personally, unless there is a physical reason why a woman can't serve a particular combat role (and given how men are generally physically stronger than women, there are some roles where this may be a valid issue), then they should not be denied the ability to serve in that role. Exceptions may also be made for particularly physically capable women as well as the upper end of women's physical capabilities probably does overlap the lower end of men's physical capabilities. Basically, it all comes down to qualifications, whether skill or strength based. If a woman can hack the role, she should be allowed to perform it, no matter the role.
Mostly because nobody has been drafted since fucking Vietnam, and nobody is likely to be ever, ya fuckin' morons.
A valid point and effectively a true one. However, men are still required to register for the draft and if they don't, they are denied various government services and benefits. Admittedly, short of WW3 taking place, the odds of another draft are incredibly slim (although there has been talk about reinstating it in order to make the government a bit more leery of committing troops to various military actions due to the military currently mostly filled, especially in the enlisted ranks, by the poor).
I might be talking out my arse here but wasn't there a study about how squads changed once female members were added? The men became more protective and more willing to risk themselves to ensure that the women were not hurt or recived medical atention if they were. Might be chatting absolute shit but it did the rounds some discussions.
I might be talking out my arse here but wasn't there a study about how squads changed once female members were added? The men became more protective and more willing to risk themselves to ensure that the women were not hurt or recived medical atention if they were. Might be chatting absolute shit but it did the rounds some discussions.
Did such research reflects short term or long term changes? It looks like Canada may have had women in combat roles the longest, and only since 1989? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
My intuition is that a lot of this sort of gender bias is going to be the worst immediately, but would curb over time.
I might be talking out my arse here but wasn't there a study about how squads changed once female members were added? The men became more protective and more willing to risk themselves to ensure that the women were not hurt or recived medical atention if they were. Might be chatting absolute shit but it did the rounds some discussions.
Doesn't surprise me. This would be a similar case to the Sacred Band of Thebes. In brief, they were an ancient Greek army consisting entirely of gay couples. As a result, they were also some of the fiercest fighters in antiquity as each couple would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of their respective companions. In this case, even if there isn't any romantic love between the men and the women in the squad, the same biological drives to protect someone may have kicked in here.
Doesn't surprise me. This would be a similar case to the Sacred Band of Thebes. In brief, they were an ancient Greek army consisting entirely of gay couples. As a result, they were also some of the fiercest fighters in antiquity as each couple would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of their respective companions. In this case, even if there isn't any romantic love between the men and the women in the squad, the same biological drives to protect someone may have kicked in here.
If the ethical implications were not absolutely insane, I'd like to see all sorts of tests of different combinations of psychology profiles, ethnicity, culture, relationships, nationality and such. The French Foreign Legion comes to mind. But obviously this is limited to fantasy and conjecture for plenty of valid reasons.
I might be talking out my arse here but wasn't there a study about how squads changed once female members were added? The men became more protective and more willing to risk themselves to ensure that the women were not hurt or recived medical atention if they were. Might be chatting absolute shit but it did the rounds some discussions.
Doesn't surprise me. This would be a similar case to the Sacred Band of Thebes. In brief, they were an ancient Greek army consisting entirely of gay couples. As a result, they were also some of the fiercest fighters in antiquity as each couple would fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of their respective companions. In this case, even if there isn't any romantic love between the men and the women in the squad, the same biological drives to protect someone may have kicked in here.
Sort of the Sacred Band was more about proving your valour to your partner than the protection. Its a real tricky group that is bandied around a bit, they were certainly hard but not the hardest. Hell your general hoplite was pretty rock solid in comparison to the rest of the world, there was a reason the Greek mercenary was in such high demand.
Edit; it wold be cool to see something like the fish Speakers or something of that effect.
Such attitudes may or may not be a good thing on the whole. It's an interesting question, though.
It also does go down to a nature vs. nurture debate as well. Men, by and large, are biologically disposable if you take a cold-hearted look at things. The very substance that allows men to be physically stronger than women, testosterone, also tends to burn out their bodies and give them shorter lifespans than women. Women, as a contrast, stop producing their sex hormones around age 40 or so and don't produce nearly as much testosterone, and this may contribute to their longevity relative to men. In effect, once a man has impregnated a woman, he is basically no longer biologically necessary (as opposed to socially necessary, but that's getting out of the whole "nature" situation) to continuing the species and is therefore disposable. Even if he does stick around after impregnation, an infant has a much better chance of survival with only a mother than only a father and therefore it makes biological sense that the dangerous activities such as hunting, protection from enemies, and so on, be the responsibility of the male. The added physical abilities granted by testosterone make its production biologically worthwhile for the male, despite it "burning him out," because it makes him a better hunter/protector/etc.
There is also the "grandmother hypothesis" which goes into more detail about these sorts of biological issues, but it's got a lot of issues of its own so I won't do anything more other than mention that it exists.
Of course, this is again only looking at things from a cold, biological viewpoint and operates on the assumption that humans are purely driven on instinct. The fact is we are not purely driven by instinct and that nurturing does have a huge effect on us and on working with our intelligence to override our instincts.
Then again, when you're in a combat situation, you may be operating purely on instinct due to the body's natural "fight or flight" responses, so it's also possible that ancient pre-modern Homo Sapiens male protection instincts are kicking in there again as all their overrides have been shut down due to the aforementioned "fight or flight" responses.
It certainly makes for an interesting discussion though, does it not?
Indeed, these biological drives are present, but the greater question in this context is how desirable their effects are, and to what extent they can be controlled or mitigated.
Indeed, these biological drives are present, but the greater question in this context is how desirable their effects are, and to what extent they can be controlled or mitigated.
In the case of living out on an African savanna surrounded by predators, the effects of these biological drives are probably very desirable. In the case of modern society, they are less so. In the case of a combat situation, you've got the sticky middle ground where, yes, it's a modern society, but you're also in a situation at least as dangerous as the ancient ancestral savanna. Then again, in the case of war, where it comes down to "kill the enemy before they kill you," anything that makes you better at killing the enemy, even if it's relying on ancient protection instincts kicking in, is arguably very desirable.
Then again, in the case of war, where it comes down to "kill the enemy before they kill you," anything that makes you better at killing the enemy, even if it's on relying ancient protection instincts kicking in, is arguably very desirable.
There are, however, also significant downsides. Although impulses that lead to risk-taking make biological sense, they are much more questionable in the context of war. Moreover, aggressive impulses can easily lead to collateral damage.
Then again, in the case of war, where it comes down to "kill the enemy before they kill you," anything that makes you better at killing the enemy, even if it's on relying ancient protection instincts kicking in, is arguably very desirable.
There are, however, also significant downsides. Although impulses that lead to risk-taking make biological sense, they are much more questionable in the context of war. Moreover, aggressive impulses can easily lead to collateral damage.
Hence "arguably" very desirable. The pros and cons of allowing those aggressive instincts to kick in do need to be weighed. Also, the exact nature of the combat situation could play a role. If we're pretty much looking at a big, isolated battlefield where the only objects that can be targeted happen to be the opposing armies, then collateral damage isn't a concern (other than friendly fire) as there aren't any bystanders, civilian infrastructure, etc., in harm's way (think something like the WW1 trenches or the Napoleonic Wars, for example). However, in the case of urban combat, there is certainly a significant potential for collateral damage. Nowadays, urban combat appears to be the rule, and not the exception, so these issues do need to be taken into consideration.
Build me an entire platoon of psychopaths. I'm going to test something.
Depends on the extent of the psychopathy. Being able to effectively wage combat relies more on just being able to kill everything that moves. There are tactics, logistical issues, and such that also are necessary to be effective. If you're so damned crazy that you can't follow orders, odds are you won't be very effective in combat.
Build me an entire platoon of psychopaths. I'm going to test something.
Depends on the extent of the psychopathy. Being able to effectively wage combat relies more on just being able to kill everything that moves. There are tactics, logistical issues, and such that also are necessary to be effective. If you're so damned crazy that you can't follow orders, odds are you won't be very effective in combat.
This is why I'm testing things. And why I need a whole platoon. And why you're not getting them back when I'm done with them. Also I don't need movie psychopaths. I'm looking for Psychologist diagnosed ones, preferably scoring the max of whatever that standard psychiatric exam is. For science reasons.
Incidentally, one of the old reasons why many women opposed women's suffrage is that they were afraid that it would obligate them to be drafted in time of war.
Incidentally, one of the old reasons why many women opposed women's suffrage is that they were afraid that it would obligate them to be drafted in time of war.
Comments
Mostly because nobody has been drafted since fucking Vietnam, and nobody is likely to be ever, ya fuckin' morons.
The expectations placed on us play a huge role in every aspect of our development. A huge part of feminism is identifying and deconstructing the pressures that shape us at a young age with regards to gender roles, and pretty much any feminist will tell you it cuts both ways with startling regularity. A lot of memes perpetrated in regards to genders roles, even those that are positive about men, end up hurting us. For example, the idea that the stupid shit we all do at a young age is, for males, just "boyish mischief", while the same tolerance is not extended to girls, is probably part of why young girls do better in school at a young age. Nobody bothers to teach boys to socialize because we are expected to compete, which increasingly serves us ill in the modern world. Or, to go back to your previous example, men are the stronger, better gender, so of course we are the only ones who can fight, and thus we end up dying in the trenches.
Gender roles and patriarchy hurts everyone. Feminism is not the movement of women against men; it is the movement of people against stupid ideas about gender roles. It's feminism because the core of those dumb ideas usually revolve around women as inferior, as property, or as undeserving of agency or power, but men can be just as hurt by those same expectations regardless of their original intent.
Feminism is not perfect. For fucks sake, the first wave was basically an entirely racist, classist movement, the second wave was batshit wacky in all sorts of hilarious ways, and the third wave has yet to find a coherent voice. But I have seen too many of my friends get hurt by the systems of oppression feminist stands against, and systems like it, to even consider renouncing the idea.
If you weren't so convinced that the only reason women could possibly want to express greviences over how society is run is because they haven't been able to get men killed off like they used to, you'd see you probably already agree with most tenets of real feminism, which happens to look almost nothing like the crazy bullshit you have convinced yourself feminism is.
My intuition is that a lot of this sort of gender bias is going to be the worst immediately, but would curb over time.
Edit; it wold be cool to see something like the fish Speakers or something of that effect.
There is also the "grandmother hypothesis" which goes into more detail about these sorts of biological issues, but it's got a lot of issues of its own so I won't do anything more other than mention that it exists.
Of course, this is again only looking at things from a cold, biological viewpoint and operates on the assumption that humans are purely driven on instinct. The fact is we are not purely driven by instinct and that nurturing does have a huge effect on us and on working with our intelligence to override our instincts.
Then again, when you're in a combat situation, you may be operating purely on instinct due to the body's natural "fight or flight" responses, so it's also possible that ancient pre-modern Homo Sapiens male protection instincts are kicking in there again as all their overrides have been shut down due to the aforementioned "fight or flight" responses.
It certainly makes for an interesting discussion though, does it not?