Women's Issues

It's true there will always be militaries, but the only need we have for militaries is to wage war. Otherwise it's an respectable but unneeded tax payer funded job creation programme.

Equality is good and all but having women in combat means having women in combat. That a 'bad', in my opinion, as you put it. It means more women killing, fighting and dying overseas the same as 'our boys' are prepare to doing as we speak.

What good is there to taken from that?

edited 20th Dec '14 4:23:33 AM by joeyjojo

In other words, the problem you have with women in combat isn't with women, per se, it's more a philosophical objection to war and militaries themselves?

Are you implying that Men Are the Expendable Gender?

edited 20th Dec '14 3:50:56 AM by Greenmantle

We also need militaries as the only real way to ensure independence. If you don't have people you can trust protecting you, folks like the Daesh are more than happy to "protect" you instead. They aren't just because we feel like kicking some heads for no reason.

Consider this in perspective. More women killing? As opposed to what? We all know the answer is not "no one killing". No, the answer is more men killing. How is that inherently better? If it's not, surely good came out of this, no?

If we aren't willing to accept the responsibilities of equality, why should we get the benefits of equality?

Indeed. We can't have it both ways to end the perception of women as fragile little feathery treasures and then at the same time prevent them from taking their own risks on the same level men do. "Women are fragile and special" is also a sexist construct.

^^^^Pretty much. War isn't going to just go away. But having women take part in it in the name of fairness is hardly any clause to celebrate.

Would, as is widely suspected, the name of staff shortages be any better?

War will always happen as long as there are two people that disagree with each other. And it's not something endemic to humans, either.

edited 20th Dec '14 4:34:54 AM by Greenmantle

Also I would like to point out.

Armies ARE NOT, soley war fighters contrary to popular oppinion, they are also one of the major groups to clean up after disasters, and some other civil service jobs that I cant remember while operating on only 3 hours of sleep.

I would argue war is not inharently bad either since most advancment of human socity and technology comes from it, but that is beyond the point here.

edited 20th Dec '14 4:42:04 AM by Imca

^ A valuable service and one I'm thankful for. I don't think soldiers are hardened killers. Your average military personnel deployed overseas isn't even there in a combat role. But nevertheless it's still not the armed forces primary purpose.

^^Eh maybe a little, but not much really.

Okay let's put another way.

Let suppose you were a feminist and animal-rights activist who lives in Spain.

Bullfighting is legal and commonly practised there (yes even to this day) but let's say for the purposes of argument that the laws that prevents women from taking part in bullfighting were still on the books on the grounds it was an unladylike and dangerous activity

So the likes of bette ford and Conchita Cintrón come along and try to push for acceptance of women matadors saying not unreasonably that chauvinism and sexism is holding back women's participation in the 'spot'.

The law is unquestionably discriminatory against women, but you are opposed to the practice considering it barbaric. So how can you in good conscience support equality for women matadors when it means women taking part in an activity you oppose?

edited 20th Dec '14 5:51:51 AM by joeyjojo

By keeping my ideas consistent and not hurling them out of the window just because they happen to sometimes support things I don't like. So, pretty simple, really. It's impossible to get something this rooted in tradition banned, so might as well take smaller steps and make it better.

Let's put it another way - football. I detest football. I find it pointless, idiotic, a grand waste of money, and prime bragging point for people who have done nothing(football fans taking pride in their team winning even though they themselves contributed bloody nothing). And to say nothing about the riots that often ensue if a team loses yet football fans never suffered the "they're all evil arseholes" stigma fans of everything else from rock music to videogames did.

Yet it still remains a primarily male-dominated field, a testosterone-fest so large I'm not even sure if female football even exists because it gets no attention ever. And the fanbase is about as closed-off and sexist to women liking football as comic books and videogames(yet again never gets the flak for that as those two get).

So yes, I find the activity annoying, pointless, and dangerous. Yet I am still able to recognize that other people enjoy it and would like to enjoy it better with less bs and I'm perfectly capable of defending their right to do that. Because it's not about creating a perfect world for myself. In a perfect world for me, among other things, prudes wouldn't exist at all. Is that a good thing for me? Fuck yeah, but... not so much for many others.

Like it or not, activism involves protecting things you don't like because internal consistence with your ideas is important. I wish more activists understood that.

Keeping one gender out of something, even something one dislikes, should never be considered "Halfway there! Good work, everyone!"

When there are no women around, a potential rapist isn't a potential rapist. He's just a guy. As Aprilla pointed out, there is an important line between "potential rapist" and "bit of an ass" and more often than not, it's not one we see because rapists don't act like rapists when other men are around. There might be that errant douchebag boasting about his roofies or whatever but they are the minority.

The more important piece of information is this: what does he act like when men aren't around? Something I've found many women will attest to is that men change their behavior substantially when they're around other men and when they're just around women. That guy bragging about all the pussy he got last night might actually have gotten it legitimately by being a fun and likable guy, while the other guy sitting in the corner visibly disquieted by the braggart's annoying boasts could be emotionally blackmailing a friend for sex. We don't know, because it involves a side of men we never see, because we never see our male companions in absence of male company.

You are making a lot of assumptions about what a rapist looks like and acts like that only serve to reinforce my point that men are ill-suited to identify a rapist.

edited 20th Dec '14 7:02:58 AM by TobiasDrake

No. I HATE this line of thought.

Also, based on an argument I JUST HAD with mods in TRS about Men Are the Expendable Gender, do not use it in that capacity. According to everyone there, that trope is only for a fictional setting where men are unquestionably considered expendable. That's it.

And lastly, the whole "if you want equality you need equal responsibility" argument is a trap. Especially when it comes to military service. It wants to believe two contradictory things at once: both that combat is a terrible thing and we shouldn't inflict on anyone, and that combat is a privilege that should be reserved for the worthy. It's an argument that comes up whenever women's suffrage is brought up—women got the right to vote without the draft to come with it. The people who say this are arguing that since war is a bad thing, men should not be drafted because it causes suffering. But they also argue that women shouldn't get to vote unless they suffer too.

It's textbook Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Don't compare drafting to voluntary service. You might run into someone from a country that still has drafting. Like myself here. They aren't even remotely close.

There's a difference between forcibly dragging confused young adults with little training into battle and hoping that'll win things somnehow and people voluntarily choosing to accept full responsibility of military service.

So what you're arguing is women choosing for themselves to take risks and responsibilities is... a bad thing? You're the one suggesting contradictory things. That combat is a terrible thing that should not be inflicted to anyone, but it's a necessary thing, so let's just have men die while women sit there being precious. Unless you don't actually think combat is necessary, in which case... well, how else are you going to defend from crazy assholes with ideologies?

Equality involves being free to make the same choices as the people you're equal to. Even if you don't like the choices they make.

It seems to me that equality requires that you share both privileges and responsibilities. Having the privileges without the responsibilities gives you an advantage over someone who has both, and having the responsibilities without the privileges gives you a disadvantage. The question of whether the draft (or bullfighting, or whatever) is something that we should be doing or not is separate from the question of gender equality. Regardless of what you decide about the draft, men and women should be treated the same way within the context of it. Otherwise it's, by definition, not equality.

@tobias, I get your point about how men act but I'm curious, why should only men be doing this teaching? My friend who's a victim knows very well the warning signs she missed with the guy she was with, she's in a very good position to advise others on what such signs could possibly lead to. Hell myself and others who know what she went to have some idea of what the warning signs look like because we missed them to and she's told us about them.

Equality requires the sharing of both privilege and responsibility since people have a varied basis of which is which. If a women wants to share the same responsibility as a man and sees that responsibility as a privilege does the sharing of responsibility not become a desired privilege for equality?

edited 20th Dec '14 11:07:26 AM by SilasW

I'm sorry, what?

Can you explain how you can draw ANY of that from what I said?

[[/quoteblock]] Equality requires the sharing of both privilege and responsibility since people have a varied basis of which is which. If a women wants to share the same responsibility as a man and sees that responsibility as a privilege does the sharing of responsibility not become a desired privilege for equality? [[/quoteblock]]

Let me out this way:

1. Someone wants to have equal rights but doesn't believe in something.
2. Society says if you want equality, you have to do this thing you don't believe in anyway.
3. Person argues that equal rights should not be lumped in with this thing they don't believe in.

edited 20th Dec '14 11:13:50 AM by KingZeal

You said it yourself that "equality means responsibilities as well as privileges" is apparently a trap. So, responsibilities are a bad thing?

See edit above.

Here's a twist - then they don't have to make that choice to do the thing they don't believe in. Is anybody being forced into close combat in the UK? Last time I heard, nope. And for that matter, if they hate war, what the hell are they doing in the military anyway? Didn't they get the memo? There are also tests in place to ensure only the people(and by extension women) who can take it are only allowed to join it.

Please, read the original thing. I repeat, nobody is being forced into anything. You're advocating restricting other people's choices because you don't like them. That's horribly patronizing and sexist in itself.

Here's what you're suggesting:

• Someone wants to have equal rights but doesn't like X.
• Society says if you want equality, you have to let other people do X if they choose to.
• Person argues that equal rights should not be lumped in with X.

X can be absolutely anything. Do you not see how sexist that is?

edited 20th Dec '14 11:28:31 AM by Luminosity

No. I literally have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

I'm not talking exclusively about the military. Nor am I talking about stopping people from doing any thing they want to do. I haven't said anything about keeping women out of combat. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I am talking about the idea that if you want equal rights, you are this forced to "earn" them by whatever arbitrary means and "responsibilities" society considers "earning".

Similar to some "You aren't considered legally a man until you've killed something" bullshit. Again, my objection is with the assertion that if you want basic equality, you must do something to "earn" it first. Anything else you're getting from that, that's on you.

edited 20th Dec '14 1:09:42 PM by KingZeal

The misunderstanding could be coming from the fact that this argument was originally with someone who felt women shouldn't be allowed to be combat troops due to their opposition to the military in general. Then you jumped in and started arguing alongside that person Zeal, I don't think it's to unreasonable for people to have thought you agreed with said person.

Or they could see the specifically quoted part that I was arguing with.

In fact, the entire idea of "either you want women to fight or you don't" mindset is exactly the problem. I wouldn't care if every woman on planet Earth demanded the right TO enter the military but turned right around and every single one chose not to. I would defend their right to choose the military and defy that it's their "responsibility" to do so. And that would go if the genders were reversed as well.

Zeal I am going to have to disagree....

THIS is the truth, right here, if that is not abided by all it ends up doing is swaping which party the privlage lies with in the end.

True equality takes the good with the bad, every one is treated as equals, with every thing that comes with being an equal.

"True equality", the way you describe it, is a fallacy. True equality means that if everyone in your group gets the right to vote and has thus has to spend a night alone with a hungry bear, to be equal, you must do the same. If you stop and say, "Wait, you know what? I'd rather not do the bear thing...", then you are somehow wrong.

If this is an inevitable consequence (like, say, everyone takes turns on neighborhood watch) then fine. That's a necessary thing. But an artificial social construct that determines "to get this basic right, you must submit to this bad thing" is a broken system and should be treated as such.