(February 15, 2021 at 6:16 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've seen some discussion about how to contextualize this as the patriarchy hurting men or women.  It's men.  Surprise, the patriarchy isn't really set up to the benefit of men, just some men.  The rest of us are expendable, even if our females aren't.  It's obviously never been true that any system could keep women off the battlefield, because the battlefield ends up being where people are.  Insomuch as the societal expectations and compulsory service specifics have traditionally exploited men for this labor, that's just that.

I think we could split the baby if we took field in one hand and command in the other.  As they exploited males, they simultaneously excluded female strategists for whom none of the traditional (and already tenuous) arguments apply.  Chewing up boys and spitting out girls.

Patriarchy is harmful to men and women. For men, it's building a culture of economic labor exploitation. For women, it's reproduction and domestic exploitation. Both are exploited just in a different way.

(February 15, 2021 at 7:15 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(February 15, 2021 at 6:16 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've seen some discussion about how to contextualize this as the patriarchy hurting men or women.  It's men.  Surprise, the patriarchy isn't really set up to the benefit of men, just some men.  The rest of us are expendable, even if our females aren't.  It's obviously never been true that any system could keep women off the battlefield, because the battlefield ends up being where people are.  Insomuch as the societal expectations and compulsory service specifics have traditionally exploited men for this labor, that's just that.

I think we could split the baby if we took field in one hand and command in the other.  As they exploited males, they simultaneously excluded female strategists for whom none of the traditional (and already tenuous) arguments apply.  Chewing up boys and spitting out girls.

Patriarchy is harmful to men and women. For men, it's building a culture of economic labor exploitation. For women, it's reproduction and domestic exploitation. Both are exploited just in a different way.

So you're saying that they're equal, then.

(February 15, 2021 at 7:17 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(February 15, 2021 at 7:15 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Patriarchy is harmful to men and women. For men, it's building a culture of economic labor exploitation. For women, it's reproduction and domestic exploitation. Both are exploited just in a different way.

So you're saying that they're equal, then.  

Yes and No as both are exploited but it's a question of to what degree and of course you have to add intersectional elements to that kind of discussion.

The point that I wanted to express is that there is no efforts in changing it.

What would society think if I say women have to give birth to children and stay at home because that’s their nature? Well, that efforts to change that.

But where are the efforts to change this view of men being expendable? Of opposing this idea of men going to war?

Of course the causes of war go beyond a gender issue, but someone has to fight wars. Who? Men.

And yes, women are also affected in the battlefield. When the men get there, at some point in the war.

Quote:The point that I wanted to express is that there is no efforts in changing it.

I'm curious what you want to change. If you want to end war? good luck with that. Do you want more women in the army? that's already happening and is that really a good thing though? considering it won't lessen the amount of death.

Quote:What would society think if I say women have to give birth to children and stay at home because that’s their nature? Well, that efforts to change that.

I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone who argues war is the nature of men 

Quote:But where are the efforts to change this view of men being expendable? Of opposing this idea of men going to war?

Plenty of feminists have been anti-draft and again I'm curious of what you think would accomplish that. Surely your not proposing men be treated the way women are. That's just trading one exploitation for another.

Quote:Of course, the causes of war go beyond a gender issue, but someone has to fight wars. Who? Men.

And everyone dies in those wars 

Quote:And yes, women are also affected in the battlefield. When the men get there, at some point in the war.

And long long after they leave after all someone has to rebuild after all the men are dead.

(February 15, 2021 at 7:45 pm)Macoleco Wrote: The point that I wanted to express is that there is no efforts in changing it.

Well...that's not true.  Even as men and women aren't held to the same standards, women are now officially capable of being infantry, and not just infantry - Rangers.  A small number of women have expressed interest, and an even smaller number have qualified.  That par for the course no matter what you dangle.

Quote:What would society think if I say women have to give birth to children and stay at home because that’s their nature? Well, that efforts to change that.

They'd think..."duh".

Quote:But where are the efforts to change this view of men being expendable? Of opposing this idea of men going to war?

You wont get the latter from the military, and you'll only get more ideas of more expendable people, from the same.  

Quote:Of course the causes of war go beyond a gender issue, but someone has to fight wars. Who? Men.

And yes, women are also affected in the battlefield. When the men get there, at some point in the war.

Everyone fights wars, whether they're officially allowed to serve as combat arms or not.

Honestly, warfighting is the absolute worst example of a structural inequality based on the ambiguity of gender to the detriment of men. It's a thing, sure...but among like things, the smallest thing. Ever shot a man in anger? The number of men that it even conceptually effects, in the west, miniscule...and all of those men are volunteers.

Can you imagine how huge my vagina would have to be to show up here on the boards and complain that the service I signed up for on a whim was rough? Big...giant..pussy.

Men seem to romanticize, if not out right instigate, war in ways that women typically do not. I don't think saying society "forces men to fight wars" is the right way to think about it.

(February 15, 2021 at 2:09 pm)Macoleco Wrote: You are trying too hard Boru

No, it only looks that way because you’re not trying hard enough.

Boru

I joined the Navy to see the world. I've been far enough out to sea that we were allowed pump the bilge water overboard, which means we were >50 miles from land. Take that, fish! I spent maybe 3 hours topside in all the time we were ever underway,  I did NOT join to deliver megababyburners to our adversaries, though I suppose that that could have been one outcome, given that some of the ships I was on had a "nuclear capability".   But that is one thing I did not expect to ever happen, and I was right. I was poor and looking for a way up. Almost everyone in my company in boot camp lost weight. I gained weight.

(February 15, 2021 at 9:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Men seem to romanticize, if not out right instigate, war in ways that women typically do not. I don't think saying society "forces men to fight wars" is the right way to think about it.

Also a misconception.  I'll point you to the the discovery of a matriarchal empire in celtic europe that coincides with the largest number of spears and cracked skulls ever recovered.

Gentleman......the ladies are colder than you.  They will spend your lives for less, and your fellow man already deemed you otherwise worthless.