"Misandry isn't real."
Seriously? So hating men doesn't exist simply because hating women exists? That's some sexist mental gymnastics you've had to do to try and rationalize your tolerance for sexism against men.
"Females are made in to objects constantly."
Get back to me when your sex has been forced in to being objects of war by the government in which they had to fight, kill, and die as objects of war...Just sayin'.
Not very fair to bring up war as an argument, since it's men's fault that only men used to go off to war. Do you think it was women that decided they were weak and wanted to stay home? No...
Just because some men enforced it on men in general does not make it an unfair point. It still illustrates that men have been objectified in the worst way imaginable regardless of who made it so.
Also, men can still be drafted, it's still something that can happen.
Also, a lot of women opposed the idea of being able to vote because they assumed they would also be given societal obligations like men did if they got the ability to vote, such as being drafted. So yes, a lot of them did.
There's also the part about how although some groups may be opposed to women not being given the "choice" to be in combat positions, those groups, such as feminism, is not fighting to make women obligated to sign up to the selective services like men have to.
And to push it a little further, I could say the same to yourself given that it's usually women that produce content of models and so on, such as women's magazines. Would that make it unfair because women also do it?
Overall, it's irrelevent. The point still stands that men have been objectified by being turned in to objects of war.
"In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause."
""Our country has never drafted women, ever," said Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs for the Selective Service. "The president asked that it [requiring women to register] be looked at about a year and a half ago. They [Department of Defense] looked at it and say they've reached no conclusion.
"Certainly the role of women is changing in the military. We may have to look at it more as the role of women continues to evolve," he said. "But right now, they feel that volunteers are all that are needed, in terms of women."
Brodsky said women aren't being considered for a draft because, historically, the draft was used to fill combat units. "Ninety-seven percent of all draftees went to the Army from 1948 to 1973, when the draft ended," he said.
With the current combat-exclusion laws covering women service members, they are precluded from being drafted for these units. Congress would have to change the law to require women to register and be drafted, Brodsky said.
An estimated 94 percent of the 18- to 25-year-old men in the United States have registered for the draft. Congress reinstated the registration requirement in 1980, after a seven-year lull. Men are required by law to register with the Selective Service System upon reaching their 18th birthday.
"However, if we had to draft health-care professionals -- doctors, nurses, medical technicians -- there's a very strong likelihood, with the numbers DoD would require in such a draft, a skill-specific draft, women ... could be considered because so many women are doctors, nurses and medical technicians," Brodsky said.
The huge feminist organization N.O.W. opposes any conscription but says if it's going to happen then women should be drafted too. They have testified to this before Congress.
The Servicewomen's Action Network has done a lot in favor of getting women in all areas of the military.
The SPLC women's chapter aided legally in a lawsuit asking for equality under a draft.
Until women are integrated fully in the military an equitable draft cannot happen. Those fighting for full female participation in the armed forces first and foremost are doing it right.
Men were turned into objects of war by other men. Women were never drafted because men enforced patriarchal views that women are weak and wouldn't be able to fight/they'd distract the men, and that men are strong and superior and are the default for soldiers. Men also started all of the wars that they forced other men to fight in.
To be fair, no one, regardless of gender, should ever be forced or drafted into war without their consent. But once more, it was men that made this rule, not women. Men didn't want to give women the right to vote (men should have never been in the position to give and take rights from people as they see fit) because they didn't believe women were logical/mature, and because they knew women wouldn't support the archaic laws and restrictions on society that men had put into place over the course of time.
"Men were turned in to objects of war by other men."
- This does not change that men were still turned in to objects of war. A small group of people being the same sex as the people they are doing such a thing to does not discredit that the men it happened to were turned in to objects of war.
- Women also sell products of female models in them, so I could use the same logic if I were to accept that such a thing is objectification like I assume you do.
- If we are to also follow that what I assume you believe to be objectification (such as sexual magazines) is objectification then that doesn't change that women choose to use their bodies for such things, it is not enforced on to women but done by their own choice, therefor it is other WOMEN objectifying women with the use of their own bodies, therefor I could use the same rebuttal you used of "they are objectified by other men".
- As implied above, women choose to model in sexual ways that you view as objectifying women and men were and still can be forced in to being objects, which sets the two to be completely different.
Your view of patriarchy is a bit off in my opinion. You say that women weren't allowed to be drafted because they were weak, etc, etc. However in times of drafting it's moreso a numbers game. If what you said is true then why were women simply not used as cannon fodder for male soldiers to be able to live more at the expense of the assumed lesser beings (women)?
You also said that it would distract male soldiers. If that was the case then why would they not use that to their advantage against the enemy?
Despite the above, if that was the case then why were women not drafted in other ways that were beneficial where women had been working, such as nurses and so on, obviously to assist and be helping hands and help with other means?
I don't believe any of those reasons to be the case, though. If history shows anything it has shown that women's lives were held to be more valuable, be it due to having a womb or so on. This is why in cases like the titanic that women would go first, even before the elderly and even in cases like in the past when men were obligated, not women, to assist in preventing criminal activity when it occured.
You say that men also started "all" the wars, which just isn't true at all. Have they caused most wars? Sure, I'll give you that one but there have been women within history that have caused wars. A Google search would easily show you this. I would do it now but my computer is a piece of shit and whenever I open new tabs I risk having my firefox shut down. If you can't find any cases (which I am sure you would easily be able to if you were actually looking) then I'll try my best to use this crappy computer to find you an example.
I keep hearing this "But it was men that done it to men" argument being used for people and I don't get the relevance. So it's not objectification if someone of the same group objectifies you? So African Americans never enslaved other African Americans just because they're all African Americans? It's a silly argument, and maybe you just haven't heard rebuttals towards the argument so don't take everything I say as a direct insult to you but just in general of the argument's usage but it sounds more like an excuse to hold on to a belief rather than a reason to hold on to a belief.
"Men didn't want to give women the right to vote."
- Well actually, men nor women wanted to. It's not talked about but a lot of women opposed it because they assumed it would then bring on societal obligations like men who could vote, such as being drafted. There were also a lot of men that supported it.
- Also, men and women for the most of history could and couldn't vote. Men and women that owned land could vote, men and women who did not could not vote.
The reason why men could vote was because of the societal obligation to being drafted, hence why women could not. It didn't have anything to do with what you mentioned and if men do not sign up for the selective service they are not able to vote, among other basic human rights being retracted. It has nothing to do with assuming women would resist some power structure that men just couldn't do, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
You wrote two novels as a response to two paragraphs so I'm not even going to get into this. You basically put words into my mouth and created arguments I didn't even mention (women's magazines and modeling? making false assumptions about what I think is objectifying?)
You are creating a stance to argue against; not actually taking into account what I'm saying, just what you want me to say.
You start with: "If we are to also follow that what I assume you believe to be objectification..."
That was your first error. You assumed something that I never stated, and attributed it to me as if it was my statement. That's a good old strawman.
Is Magic Mike sexist towards men?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Misandry isn't real."
Seriously? So hating men doesn't exist simply because hating women exists? That's some sexist mental gymnastics you've had to do to try and rationalize your tolerance for sexism against men.
"Females are made in to objects constantly."
Get back to me when your sex has been forced in to being objects of war by the government in which they had to fight, kill, and die as objects of war...Just sayin'.
--
deshikd
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
Not very fair to bring up war as an argument, since it's men's fault that only men used to go off to war. Do you think it was women that decided they were weak and wanted to stay home? No...
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-4
-4
Just because some men enforced it on men in general does not make it an unfair point. It still illustrates that men have been objectified in the worst way imaginable regardless of who made it so.
Also, men can still be drafted, it's still something that can happen.
Also, a lot of women opposed the idea of being able to vote because they assumed they would also be given societal obligations like men did if they got the ability to vote, such as being drafted. So yes, a lot of them did.
There's also the part about how although some groups may be opposed to women not being given the "choice" to be in combat positions, those groups, such as feminism, is not fighting to make women obligated to sign up to the selective services like men have to.
And to push it a little further, I could say the same to yourself given that it's usually women that produce content of models and so on, such as women's magazines. Would that make it unfair because women also do it?
Overall, it's irrelevent. The point still stands that men have been objectified by being turned in to objects of war.
--
wigz
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
westoptic
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Rostker v. Goldberg
"In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause."
""Our country has never drafted women, ever," said Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs for the Selective Service. "The president asked that it [requiring women to register] be looked at about a year and a half ago. They [Department of Defense] looked at it and say they've reached no conclusion.
"Certainly the role of women is changing in the military. We may have to look at it more as the role of women continues to evolve," he said. "But right now, they feel that volunteers are all that are needed, in terms of women."
Brodsky said women aren't being considered for a draft because, historically, the draft was used to fill combat units. "Ninety-seven percent of all draftees went to the Army from 1948 to 1973, when the draft ended," he said.
With the current combat-exclusion laws covering women service members, they are precluded from being drafted for these units. Congress would have to change the law to require women to register and be drafted, Brodsky said.
An estimated 94 percent of the 18- to 25-year-old men in the United States have registered for the draft. Congress reinstated the registration requirement in 1980, after a seven-year lull. Men are required by law to register with the Selective Service System upon reaching their 18th birthday.
"However, if we had to draft health-care professionals -- doctors, nurses, medical technicians -- there's a very strong likelihood, with the numbers DoD would require in such a draft, a skill-specific draft, women ... could be considered because so many women are doctors, nurses and medical technicians," Brodsky said.
The huge feminist organization N.O.W. opposes any conscription but says if it's going to happen then women should be drafted too. They have testified to this before Congress.
The Servicewomen's Action Network has done a lot in favor of getting women in all areas of the military.
The SPLC women's chapter aided legally in a lawsuit asking for equality under a draft.
Until women are integrated fully in the military an equitable draft cannot happen. Those fighting for full female participation in the armed forces first and foremost are doing it right.
--
wigz
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
*ACLU, not SPLC. Derp
Men were turned into objects of war by other men. Women were never drafted because men enforced patriarchal views that women are weak and wouldn't be able to fight/they'd distract the men, and that men are strong and superior and are the default for soldiers. Men also started all of the wars that they forced other men to fight in.
To be fair, no one, regardless of gender, should ever be forced or drafted into war without their consent. But once more, it was men that made this rule, not women. Men didn't want to give women the right to vote (men should have never been in the position to give and take rights from people as they see fit) because they didn't believe women were logical/mature, and because they knew women wouldn't support the archaic laws and restrictions on society that men had put into place over the course of time.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
"Men were turned in to objects of war by other men."
- This does not change that men were still turned in to objects of war. A small group of people being the same sex as the people they are doing such a thing to does not discredit that the men it happened to were turned in to objects of war.
- Women also sell products of female models in them, so I could use the same logic if I were to accept that such a thing is objectification like I assume you do.
- If we are to also follow that what I assume you believe to be objectification (such as sexual magazines) is objectification then that doesn't change that women choose to use their bodies for such things, it is not enforced on to women but done by their own choice, therefor it is other WOMEN objectifying women with the use of their own bodies, therefor I could use the same rebuttal you used of "they are objectified by other men".
- As implied above, women choose to model in sexual ways that you view as objectifying women and men were and still can be forced in to being objects, which sets the two to be completely different.
Your view of patriarchy is a bit off in my opinion. You say that women weren't allowed to be drafted because they were weak, etc, etc. However in times of drafting it's moreso a numbers game. If what you said is true then why were women simply not used as cannon fodder for male soldiers to be able to live more at the expense of the assumed lesser beings (women)?
You also said that it would distract male soldiers. If that was the case then why would they not use that to their advantage against the enemy?
Despite the above, if that was the case then why were women not drafted in other ways that were beneficial where women had been working, such as nurses and so on, obviously to assist and be helping hands and help with other means?
I don't believe any of those reasons to be the case, though. If history shows anything it has shown that women's lives were held to be more valuable, be it due to having a womb or so on. This is why in cases like the titanic that women would go first, even before the elderly and even in cases like in the past when men were obligated, not women, to assist in preventing criminal activity when it occured.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You say that men also started "all" the wars, which just isn't true at all. Have they caused most wars? Sure, I'll give you that one but there have been women within history that have caused wars. A Google search would easily show you this. I would do it now but my computer is a piece of shit and whenever I open new tabs I risk having my firefox shut down. If you can't find any cases (which I am sure you would easily be able to if you were actually looking) then I'll try my best to use this crappy computer to find you an example.
I keep hearing this "But it was men that done it to men" argument being used for people and I don't get the relevance. So it's not objectification if someone of the same group objectifies you? So African Americans never enslaved other African Americans just because they're all African Americans? It's a silly argument, and maybe you just haven't heard rebuttals towards the argument so don't take everything I say as a direct insult to you but just in general of the argument's usage but it sounds more like an excuse to hold on to a belief rather than a reason to hold on to a belief.
"Men didn't want to give women the right to vote."
- Well actually, men nor women wanted to. It's not talked about but a lot of women opposed it because they assumed it would then bring on societal obligations like men who could vote, such as being drafted. There were also a lot of men that supported it.
- Also, men and women for the most of history could and couldn't vote. Men and women that owned land could vote, men and women who did not could not vote.
The reason why men could vote was because of the societal obligation to being drafted, hence why women could not. It didn't have anything to do with what you mentioned and if men do not sign up for the selective service they are not able to vote, among other basic human rights being retracted. It has nothing to do with assuming women would resist some power structure that men just couldn't do, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
--
westoptic
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You wrote two novels as a response to two paragraphs so I'm not even going to get into this. You basically put words into my mouth and created arguments I didn't even mention (women's magazines and modeling? making false assumptions about what I think is objectifying?)
You are creating a stance to argue against; not actually taking into account what I'm saying, just what you want me to say.
You start with: "If we are to also follow that what I assume you believe to be objectification..."
That was your first error. You assumed something that I never stated, and attributed it to me as if it was my statement. That's a good old strawman.