"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.
If you're not going to be fair and back out whenever the opposition addresses your points then that's fine, just please ensure that you don't do it to me in the future, please.
Yes, I clearly stated that I was "assuming" your position, not what you stated but your position given that most I talk to about this tend to view those things I mentioned as objectification. This is why I mentioned that it was an assumption, so that if I was wrong that you could correct me. You've gotten defensive and now choose to shut down the discussion due to this when I was inviting you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. It wasn't a strawman, either. By admitting it was an assumption I opened the posibility of the point I'm arguing against not being your actual views.
You also didn't address any of the points I addressed to what you actually typed, though. Such as the men starting wars, the men objectifying men thing, and so on. Why did you not address those parts?
If you want to back away from the conversation then that's fine but I'm just going to assume that you had beliefs and I've challenged them and you're not open to having your views challenged unless it's by someone you know you can prove wrong. If not and you want to continue this discussion then if you would be so kind as to explain how you think women are objectified, if you believe they are.
...Fair? I'm not obligated to give you any response. Me not responding to any of your messages is just as fair as me spamming you. That's an obscure term to use.
I don't need to defend my beliefs to a stranger on the internet who has parroted the exact arguments I've addressed over a dozen times in different arguments. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Thanks for the strawman once more: "if you would be so kind as to explain how you think women are objectified, if you believe they are."
I never stated I think women are objectified. Once more, you're putting words into my mouth. This is why I won't waste anymore time with you. You construct an argument and attribute it to me, and try to disprove points that I haven't even made. Try to read what someone writes, instead of what you want them to write. Goodbye.
Ok, then I'll try again. I believe I know how this will play out but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and create a response to the initial comment you made to me while quoting you and removing the objectification of women part.
"Men were turned into objects of war by other men."
- What relevance does this have and what point are you trying to make with that? Yes, men were turned in to objects of war by other men. Does this discredit the view that men were and can still be made in to objects of war (objectified)?
"Women were never drafted because men enforced patriarchal views on women", etc, etc
- 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 of capability (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.
"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.
Basically, I really despise when people see problems created by men, and blame them on women.
"What relevance does this have and what point are you trying to make with that? Yes, men were turned in to objects of war by other men. Does this discredit the view that men were and can still be made in to objects of war (objectified)?"
- Absolutely not. I merely pointed out the fact that men drafted other men, to illustrate the point that men objectified other men in this instance. It was not women who discussed, and signed these laws and policies into place to objectify these men. These decisions were made by other men. That was the simple point I was providing.
"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 of capability (women)?"
- I didn't say they were weak. I said it was assumed they were weak based on stereotypical views regarding the female gender. Women were, and sometimes still are, seen as incubators. We are only as valuable as our womb and our vagina. Men largely didn't want women in war for a variety of reasons including our ability to get pregnant, our ability to sexually arouse them and therefore distract them from their "duties", our emotional and physical "fragility" as according to patriarchal views, and a host of other reasons. War has always been a boys club; overwhelmingly men are the perpetrators of war, and it is men who are to blame for the drafting of other innocent men.
"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?"
- Once more, why don't you ask this question to the men who created the policies that barred women from combat? I'm not the one that made the decision, they are. I don't agree with their logic, but they are the one's who decided women weren't to be drafted because of their patriarchal views on male dominance and masculinity, and the fragility of the feminine woman.
The point is that NO ONE should have ever been drafted. But they were, and they happened to be men. And these men were unfairly and unjustly drafted into wars against their will by other men. Not by women. Men. Men made the decision not to draft women. The other point is you, and the majority of men who complain about the draft, have never been drafted. The last draft for the US was in the 70's. So if we're bringing up moments of the past where one gender was objectified and abused and seen as less, trust me, women will win that argument.
The Salem witch hunts, arranged marriage/young daughters sold off to men to become wives against their will, sex slavery, forced prostitution, torture and force feeding of suffragettes, the classification of fraudulent diseases and disorders ascribed to women to force them into mental asylums.... I could honestly go on for weeks. The similarity is that the women in question were treated this way by men; and the suffering that oppressed men faced over the years was, overwhelmingly, caused by other men.
Is Magic Mike sexist towards men?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"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
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.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
If you're not going to be fair and back out whenever the opposition addresses your points then that's fine, just please ensure that you don't do it to me in the future, please.
Yes, I clearly stated that I was "assuming" your position, not what you stated but your position given that most I talk to about this tend to view those things I mentioned as objectification. This is why I mentioned that it was an assumption, so that if I was wrong that you could correct me. You've gotten defensive and now choose to shut down the discussion due to this when I was inviting you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. It wasn't a strawman, either. By admitting it was an assumption I opened the posibility of the point I'm arguing against not being your actual views.
You also didn't address any of the points I addressed to what you actually typed, though. Such as the men starting wars, the men objectifying men thing, and so on. Why did you not address those parts?
If you want to back away from the conversation then that's fine but I'm just going to assume that you had beliefs and I've challenged them and you're not open to having your views challenged unless it's by someone you know you can prove wrong. If not and you want to continue this discussion then if you would be so kind as to explain how you think women are objectified, if you believe they are.
Ta.
--
westoptic
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
...Fair? I'm not obligated to give you any response. Me not responding to any of your messages is just as fair as me spamming you. That's an obscure term to use.
I don't need to defend my beliefs to a stranger on the internet who has parroted the exact arguments I've addressed over a dozen times in different arguments. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Thanks for the strawman once more: "if you would be so kind as to explain how you think women are objectified, if you believe they are."
I never stated I think women are objectified. Once more, you're putting words into my mouth. This is why I won't waste anymore time with you. You construct an argument and attribute it to me, and try to disprove points that I haven't even made. Try to read what someone writes, instead of what you want them to write. Goodbye.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Ok, then I'll try again. I believe I know how this will play out but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and create a response to the initial comment you made to me while quoting you and removing the objectification of women part.
"Men were turned into objects of war by other men."
- What relevance does this have and what point are you trying to make with that? Yes, men were turned in to objects of war by other men. Does this discredit the view that men were and can still be made in to objects of war (objectified)?
"Women were never drafted because men enforced patriarchal views on women", etc, etc
- 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 of capability (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.
"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
1
1
See More Comments =>
Basically, I really despise when people see problems created by men, and blame them on women.
"What relevance does this have and what point are you trying to make with that? Yes, men were turned in to objects of war by other men. Does this discredit the view that men were and can still be made in to objects of war (objectified)?"
- Absolutely not. I merely pointed out the fact that men drafted other men, to illustrate the point that men objectified other men in this instance. It was not women who discussed, and signed these laws and policies into place to objectify these men. These decisions were made by other men. That was the simple point I was providing.
"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 of capability (women)?"
- I didn't say they were weak. I said it was assumed they were weak based on stereotypical views regarding the female gender. Women were, and sometimes still are, seen as incubators. We are only as valuable as our womb and our vagina. Men largely didn't want women in war for a variety of reasons including our ability to get pregnant, our ability to sexually arouse them and therefore distract them from their "duties", our emotional and physical "fragility" as according to patriarchal views, and a host of other reasons. War has always been a boys club; overwhelmingly men are the perpetrators of war, and it is men who are to blame for the drafting of other innocent men.
"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?"
- Once more, why don't you ask this question to the men who created the policies that barred women from combat? I'm not the one that made the decision, they are. I don't agree with their logic, but they are the one's who decided women weren't to be drafted because of their patriarchal views on male dominance and masculinity, and the fragility of the feminine woman.
The point is that NO ONE should have ever been drafted. But they were, and they happened to be men. And these men were unfairly and unjustly drafted into wars against their will by other men. Not by women. Men. Men made the decision not to draft women. The other point is you, and the majority of men who complain about the draft, have never been drafted. The last draft for the US was in the 70's. So if we're bringing up moments of the past where one gender was objectified and abused and seen as less, trust me, women will win that argument.
The Salem witch hunts, arranged marriage/young daughters sold off to men to become wives against their will, sex slavery, forced prostitution, torture and force feeding of suffragettes, the classification of fraudulent diseases and disorders ascribed to women to force them into mental asylums.... I could honestly go on for weeks. The similarity is that the women in question were treated this way by men; and the suffering that oppressed men faced over the years was, overwhelmingly, caused by other men.