Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
White Male Privilege
Options
Comments
-
I was really just offering up the biological reason men seem to die younger, they also seemed to be throwing in details about fetuses as well though Zeffas articles does look to refute that.
Is testosterone not inherently part of male fertility? If you accept that estrogen makes womens bodies weaker is a disadvantage how are you then dismissing men not enduring for their fertility when the hormone that controls it is also the hormone that results in a weaker immune system which is potentially the reason for the shorter life span? Testosterone is also attributed to why men are more aggressive and risk taking.
It's a trade off not one being objectively better than the other. You mentioned biological privilege and I responded to your biological points and you are bringing up chivalry which is not biological but social.
Oh completely debatable, I do not believe that women are biologically advantaged over men. I believe neither gender are objectively at an advantage because I believe it is completely subjective. As you say men can be at an advantage by being physically larger and stronger but that ceases to be a privilege when it becomes a disadvantage when it results in you being conscripted to fight a war you wish no part in.
All I am saying is that it is preposterous to suggest men are biologically advantaged when it is completely subjective. I know women that have children that view it as the most important part of their life and feel a closer connection to their child due to pregnancy, in their own words they feel sorry for the partners for being men who do not experience this close connection as they do. I also know women who despise their biology, they never want children and completely hate the hormonal changes their bodies go through and are envious of the male experience. One is not objectively better than the other.
Female fertility does have greater responsibility and consequence to it. I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
For those who have great pregnancies and feel a closer bond, that's great but it doesn't really change the enormity of risk and consequence as well as managing ones ability to conceive, menstruation etc.
Do you not see the implicit bias in your example....are you admitting because of pregnancy women have closer bonds with their children than fathers do? Don't let the fathers rights activists hear that or you might have a pitchfork in your side.
The problem I have with this debate is that when you deny that, you lose all credibility in the wider debate. It's just too obvious to deny.
Undoubtedly men enjoy this biological advantage and that it can only be recognised as partial privaledge by those denying male privaledge makes it even more suspect. Our sexuality, our reproduction, our family organisation are so central to the entirety of life, how we live, whether we survive as a species, that to dismiss it as partial, as if it doesn't matter, is insane.0 -
zeffabelli wrote: »So the door holding....it was also a case a woman could not enter a room until she had permission to do that, and the opening of the door was not so much to help her, but to block her unless clearly specified
I hold doors open for everyone, male or female. More as a means of ensuring that another human being doesn't get a slap of a door than as a way of asserting my supremacy.0 -
Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about--men holding chairs out for women, men opening doors for women, men helping women with their coats, etc. Why doesn't the reverse exist for men?
If you really think all of that has existed throughout history then you really have missed what its all about.
I'm short form -chivalry is little more than a set of social rules designed to keep some semblance of societal order. Even the terms associated with it point to its origin in medieval courts. It has some parallels with other honour codes throughout history
So do women get some preferential treatment under these codes-sometimes. Often there are rules that look to compensate or protect for their relative physical weakness versus men (pre technology) who would be historically be perceived as someone engaged in wars etc.and physically stronger. There would also have been a nod to the need to maintain child bearing options in your own group and men are traditionalky more expendable in this sense. Of course that fits as part of a wider set of rules that also call for (different) courtesies to be extended to a male. Stabbing them in the back would be bad form here and somewhat dishonourable.
Over time some of those rules have evolved into the more subtle courtesies we see today -holding open doors etc. But really its not preferential, its just one aspect of a social dance we engage in to hold everything together.
There's also of course the courting ritual element there too, best captured in the classic damsel in distress them, and essentially reducing to men wishing to be seen as strong prospective mates. That, for obvious reasons, is a much older concept and ties with the idea of males filling the protective role, I.e. expendable in the face of danger, and if anything the underprivileged gender.0 -
If the average man doesn't want to be a woman and the average woman doesn't want to be man then neither can be that privilaged.0
-
zeffabelli wrote: »Female fertility does have greater responsibility and consequence to it. I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
For those who have great pregnancies and feel a closer bond, that's great but it doesn't really change the enormity of risk and consequence as well as managing ones ability to conceive, menstruation etc.
The problem I have with this debate is that when you deny that, you lose all credibility in the wider debate. It's just too obvious to deny.
Undoubtedly men enjoy this biological advantage and that it can only be recognised as partial privaledge by those denying male privaledge makes it even more suspect. Our sexuality, our reproduction, our family organisation are so central to the entirety of life, how we live, whether we survive as a species, that to dismiss it as partial, as if it doesn't matter, is insane.
Female fertility does have greater risk and responsibility. I am not denying that however I am denying that it is objectively a disadvantage. Just as with mens physical strength being an advantage in some areas and a disadvantage in others it is the same with women and reproduction. It depends on the individuals perspective and what they desire in life, it is subjective.
If you offered women a magical pill and told them it will remove all risk and consequences to their fertility however they will die about 4 years earlier, some would take it and others would not. If you offered men a magical pill that would extend their life by about 4 years but would increase their risk and consequences to their fertility some would take it and others not. If you offered 100 men and 100 women such a magical pill what numbers do you think would take it?
Wealth is not subjective though, wealth is objectively an advantage. If you offered 100 men and 100 women 100m euro with no strings attached. They can even take it and give it away to charity if they wanted. How many do you think would say no?0 -
Advertisement
-
Historically males have fought to protect females and worked to provide for them.
Never in the history of humanity have oppressors fought to protect or worked to provide for those they were oppressing.
Obviously, things have changed drastically and for the better but this narrative that has sprung up of all men having a ball while women were automatically oppressed and it was all the fault of the men is patent nonsense.
The amount of misery we get doled out has far more to do with our socioeconomic positions than our genitalia.
If most of my female counterparts are doing a little better than I am (they are) the "fault" is (quite rightly) attributed to me and it is squarely up to me to change this. Were I female and my male counterparts were having a better time I could scream sexism and wrap myself in the comforting blanket of victimhood, blaming abstract constructs like the "patriarchy" for my own failings. I would have several movements and an entire industry to encourage these feelings.
This is why invented victimhood is so seductive. This is why a powerful industry has bloomed around it. It shields people from having to look at themselves, it allows them to do the most comforting thing of all: blame someone else.0 -
Well, not entirely true. Fudalism was based on the principle of a warrior class protecting a serf class in return for their labour. It was like a protection racket that grew out of the lawlessness that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.Never in the history of humanity have oppressors fought to protect or worked to provide for those they were oppressing.
It was oppressive too; serfs were effectively the property of their warrior noble, but there was that exchange, at least at first - as central rule returned and the need to protect the local serfs from bandits or invading barbarians faded, the nobles maintained said privileges.
Doesn't disprove what you're saying overall, but I thought it fair to mention for historical accuracy.0 -
Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore. You're trying to paint a politically-dependent downside, as being comparable to the biological downsides of pregnancy.Female fertility does have greater risk and responsibility. I am not denying that however I am denying that it is objectively a disadvantage. Just as with mens physical strength being an advantage in some areas and a disadvantage in others it is the same with women and reproduction. It depends on the individuals perspective and what they desire in life, it is subjective.
Biologically, men have no downside to their increased strength. Biologically, there are a crapton of downsides to pregnancy.
You can't weigh up all the upsides/downsides between the genders though, and say one or the other has it worse overall - they are all mostly inherently incomparable - so it makes no sense for you to try and counterpoint one very obvious big downside for women (pregnancy and the risks involved) by picking '*insert random male downside here*' - that's how these debates turn to 'Us vs Them' trench warfare.0 -
It depends on the circumstances whether you are to blame or whether instead, the political/economic structure of society may be to blame - often you would be wrong to place the blame on yourself there, and people placing blame on a 'patriarchy' would also be wrong, but may be right that there's an overall power structure in society holding them back.If most of my female counterparts are doing a little better than I am (they are) the "fault" is (quite rightly) attributed to me and it is squarely up to me to change this. Were I female and my male counterparts were having a better time I could scream sexism and wrap myself in the comforting blanket of victimhood, blaming abstract constructs like the "patriarchy" for my own failings. I would have several movements and an entire industry to encourage these feelings.
This is why invented victimhood is so seductive. This is why a powerful industry has bloomed around it. It shields people from having to look at themselves, it allows them to do the most comforting thing of all: blame someone else.
This is why gender-divide debates are so utterly stupid much of the time: There are real problems which cause discrimination against people in society, and which are structurally present in how politics and the economy are operated, but they most often have nothing to do with gender, and fooling people into focusing solely on gender is the perfect 'divide and conquer' tactic, for pitting people into 'Us vs Them' arguments where they fight among each other, rather than focusing on looking at and fixing the real problems with the way politics/economics/society operates.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well, not entirely true. Fudalism was based on the principle of a warrior class protecting a serf class in return for their labour. It was like a protection racket that grew out of the lawlessness that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
It was oppressive too; serfs were effectively the property of their warrior noble, but there was that exchange, at least at first - as central rule returned and the need to protect the local serfs from bandits or invading barbarians faded, the nobles maintained said privileges.
Doesn't disprove what you're saying overall, but I thought it fair to mention for historical accuracy.
Fair point.
The nobility would have provided the leadership and cavalry but, in larger engagements and longer campaigns, the Serfs still would have constituted the bulk of the poor auld infantry that did most of the actual fighting and dying.
On an interesting side note, this is why crossbows drove the ruling elite crazy. This new technology meant that, for the first time in human conflict, a commoner with a days training could reliably defeat an elite warrior with a lifetimes's training, horse and expensive equipment. They saw that technology could render them redundant and powerless. The Pope even tried to ban them. The advent of gunpowder finished the b*stards completely.
One thing they would have had in common (in Europe) was they were all white males. Women, born in any bed, were not forced to suffer these pains and terrible risk. Not saying feudal society wasn't horrible for women too, it was. Just making the point that women (or anyone else) do not have a monopoly on misery historical or otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore. You're trying to paint a politically-dependent downside, as being comparable to the biological downsides of pregnancy.
Biologically, men have no downside to their increased strength. Biologically, there are a crapton of downsides to pregnancy.
You can't weigh up all the upsides/downsides between the genders though, and say one or the other has it worse overall - they are all mostly inherently incomparable - so it makes no sense for you to try and counterpoint one very obvious big downside for women (pregnancy and the risks involved) by picking '*insert random male downside here*' - that's how these debates turn to 'Us vs Them' trench warfare.
When you say it doesn't exist do you mean it is not currently being enforced in any country or that it cannot legally be enforced? Plenty of western countries legally can enforce a male only conscription during wartime. In Finland all males have to give a year to national service or face prison. Women can volunteer, it is a choice not a duty. Is Finland not a western country in your eyes?
The previous link I provided suggests there is a downside to mens increased strength. The testosterone in mens bodies that influences the greater muscle development also results in a weaker immune system and contributes to an earlier death. These look like downsides to me.
You are agreeing with me on that point then. I am not saying men are disadvantaged to women, I am saying there are different advantages and disadvantages which are subjective in nature and so you cannot tot them all up and reach the conclusion that men have objectively more advantages and hence are privileged.0 -
When you say it doesn't exist do you mean it is not currently being enforced in any country or that it cannot legally be enforced? Plenty of western countries legally can enforce a male only conscription during wartime. In Finland all males have to give a year to national service or face prison. Women can volunteer, it is a choice not a duty. Is Finland not a western country in your eyes?
The previous link I provided suggests there is a downside to mens increased strength. The testosterone in mens bodies that influences the greater muscle development also results in a weaker immune system and contributes to an earlier death. These look like downsides to me.
You are agreeing with me on that point then. I am not saying men are disadvantaged to women, I am saying there are different advantages and disadvantages which are subjective in nature and so you cannot tot them all up and reach the conclusion that men have objectively more advantages and hence are privileged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg
Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.
If you think the issues are not comparable, don't compare them, by bringing up a potential male downside, to counterpoint a major female downside.0 -
Does in Switzerland. Not just a long stint when you're 18, but you have to do a few weeks every year thereafter until you're about 30. If you don't do it, you can elect to do community service. If you don't do either, you get to pay an extra 6% or so percent income tax until you're about 40 - it's why many 'secondos' (children of foreigners who were born and bred in Switzerland) remain 'foreigners' and only apply for citizenship once over 40. Austria also still has conscription.KomradeBishop wrote: »Eh? Conscription doesn't exist in the western world anymore.
Women are exempt from all of the above.
Also, remember that in times of national military need, all Western nations retain the right to impose it. What do you think was all the fuss about 'the draft' during the Vietnam war in the US? And conscription in time of war is probably a far more serious matter than during peacetime.
So, please don't say how it doesn't exist in the western world anymore. It's alive and well and at best waiting for the right moment.
Except for the negative effects of testosterone. Let's not forget those.Biologically, men have no downside to their increased strength. Biologically, there are a crapton of downsides to pregnancy.0 -
Actually it was the Black Death that killed off serfdom in most of Western Europe. With two thirds of the workforce gone, the remaining third was able to demand change and better conditions. Labour market forces at their finest.The advent of gunpowder finished the b*stards completely.0 -
It's funny how any mention of men being at a disadvantage 'just comes across' as that. Fascinating how we've been conditioned to think so.KomradeBishop wrote: »Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.0 -
There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.
People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.
Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.0 -
Yea when it's brought up to randomly counterpoint the downside women face from pregnancy, it does come across like that....The Corinthian wrote: »It's funny how any mention of men being at a disadvantage 'just comes across' as that. Fascinating how we've been conditioned to think so.0 -
So you accept what you said was incorrect. Now, where it comes to being gone, would you also care to recognize that it's only 'gone' until they need food for the cannons, as it were?KomradeBishop wrote: »There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.
I don't disagree with you there. But I do dislike it when someone starts telling me that things that disadvantages can be demonstrably proven exist, don't and we should not mention them because it might upset the bigoted World view of someone who'd prefer to believe that men are all penis wielding oppressors who live a perfect life of privilege.People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.
Then stop coming out with shìte like conscription doesn't exist in the West.Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#/media/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg
Grasping for any downside men face, to counterpoint the downsides of pregnancy for women, just comes across as trying to trivializing the downsides for women - it leads directly to 'Us vs Them' type trench warfare discussion.
If you think the issues are not comparable, don't compare them, by bringing up a potential male downside, to counterpoint a major female downside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_FinlandA citizen’s initiative on abolition of conscription in Finland started collecting names on the 2nd of September 2013. The initiative proposed that men who refuse service should no longer be sentenced to prison. According to the initiative conscription is an expensive, sexist, and out-dated solution for combating any realistic threat scenarios of today. However, the initiative gained little public support and failed to reach the hurdle of 50 000 signatories needed for bringing the initiative to parliamentary process. The military is a strong part of Finnish society and culture. Before the 1990s, national service was regarded as a rite of passage for young men. This was especially true of the rural Finnish population. Often, before the 1990s, a lot of private companies were hesitant to hire 20-year olds if they had neither military service nor education to show for what they were doing during the previous two years.
The original claim made is that men have privilege because of their biology. I refuted that poisiton by saying it was subjective and that you cannot objectively say men are more advantaged than women. The debate was already an Us v Them when that claim is made.
If you agree with me that you cannot say one gender is more privileged than the other instead of disagreeing with me to then say you agree with me would it not be easier for you to go back and argue with those you actually disagree with? Those that are promoting the idea of a gender privilege?0 -
Do you think it's real? Just because you're a man and white life is so much easier? This topic is probably more visible in America (if it exists at all) than in Ireland. To be honest, these days it feels like there is so much support and encouragement for women than there is men. After all, isn't mostly men who commit suicide? For the record I live in a tiny box studio apartment and it really doesn't feel privilege all.
Here is a more detailed explanation of white male privilege (explained by a feminist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjrA2Jy9UQ
She has a serious chip on her shoulder, assuming all potential employees are making assumptions about her because of her sex and the fact she's half Asian ?
Seriously ??0 -
Advertisement
-
So to summarise the thought processes on this thread so far:
White male privilege, does it exist?
Yes camp: of course, heres all the reasons white males have it better in society
No camp: well, since you've framed privilege as a social construct, to counter that, there are many examples where (white) men have it worse in society. How can they be privileged if both face significant disadvantage?
Yes camp: OK but ignoring that, women have it harder as they age and fertility declines. They're judged on looks!
No side: sure and men are unfairly judged on success. Not to mention that just cause a 90 year old man has viable sperm doesn't mean he's going to be fighting off the young ladies.
Yes camp: OK but ignore all the social elements. Let's talk pregnancy and fertility, women have that to deal with!
No camp:WTF, we've gone from privilege as social construct to 'nature has it in for women'! When did mother nature sign up and pay dues for the patriarchy! Ok,pregnancy is a biggie. Tell you what, men on average die younger than women. That's a biggie too. ..
Yes camp: yes but ignoring that, and ignoring any other biological downside you present of being a man. What about pregnancy? men are so privileged!.......
When I put it like that I'm not sure there's much point debating, cause one half of this debate seems to want a veto on everything......0 -
To begin with you didn't even acknowledge 'some western countries' at the start. But, importantly, you do know that conscription will be reactivated the moment there is military need, in any Western nation? How can conscription be 'gone' if that is the case?KomradeBishop wrote: »There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.
Tell me, if a draft is introduced in a Western nation tomorrow, as it was in Vietnam, or almost was over Iraq, or may end up being introduced if things with Russia spin out of control, are you still going to tell us that conscription is gone? That it is not, to this day, a sword of Damocles over every citizen unfortunate enough to have been born with a Y-chromosome?
That point went out the window when you started to dismiss any disadvantages to being male. Are you going to accept you were, and frankly still are, talking shìte or not?People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.0 -
Only if you want to ignore the context of what I said and be pedantic. By and large, with exceptions that account for only a tiny portion of the population, the western world does not have conscription.The Corinthian wrote: »So you accept what you said was incorrect. Now, where it comes to being gone, would you also care to recognize that it's only 'gone' until they need food for the cannons, as it were?
Where are you pulling this shít from? In one sentence your a pedant deliberately missing the point, and in the next you're just totally making crap up to try and smear other posters.The Corinthian wrote: »I don't disagree with you there. But I do dislike it when someone starts telling me that things that disadvantages can be demonstrably proven exist, don't and we should not mention them because it might upset the bigoted World view of someone who'd prefer to believe that men are all penis wielding oppressors who live a perfect life of privilege.
Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.
I'm not the first the call you out on that nonsense, and doubt I'll be the last either.0 -
I'm not being pedantic. You said something that was stupid and factually wrong. You're pontificating about why we should not mention disadvantages to men, while symiltaniously demonstrating why it's necessary to do so - ignorance such as that which you've displayed.KomradeBishop wrote: »Only if you want to ignore the context of what I said and be pedantic.
What did I make up? You're the one who said how mentioning that men do suffer some disadvantages might upset some people - who do you think they are? The very people who like to deny that any such disadvantages are typically the ones who'll get upset - like you.Where are you pulling this shít from? In one sentence your a pedant deliberately missing the point, and in the next you're just totally making crap up to try and smear other posters.
And you try engaging in a debate without coming out with stupid falsehoods, then lacking the courage to admit that you got it wrong and instead trying to hide behind accusations of pedantry to describe your being called out on something that we not a simple detail.Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.
Indeed, you're still ignoring this detail:Tell me, if a draft is introduced in a Western nation tomorrow, as it was in Vietnam, or almost was over Iraq, or may end up being introduced if things with Russia spin out of control, are you still going to tell us that conscription is gone? That it is not, to this day, a sword of Damocles over every citizen unfortunate enough to have been born with a Y-chromosome?
Go on, show some backbone and admit you got it wrong on conscription.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Try engaging in a debate without spewing bile and nitpicking the fúck out of peoples arguments - by deliberately missing the point - in order to engage in point scoring.
I'm not the first the call you out on that nonsense, and doubt I'll be the last either.
Is this not exactly what you are doing? Most western countries have conscription ie they legally can demand men to serve, it is not currently in effect as there is no need seeing as most western countries are not actively engaged in large scale wars but the legal capacity to enact such conscription is still there and still is sexist in that it only applies to men. However you want to nitpick rather than debate so you say it doesn't exist, then when it is proven to you that it exists you say it's only a small number.
I asked you to clarify and you did not but when you say the western world does not have conscription are you implying it is not currently in action or that it is not possible under those countries laws?0 -
You didn't 'refute' anything - obviously men are advantaged by not having to deal with the downsides of pregnancy. You can't 'refute' that by trying to counterpoint it with a completely incomparable issue like conscription.The original claim made is that men have privilege because of their biology. I refuted that poisiton by saying it was subjective and that you cannot objectively say men are more advantaged than women. The debate was already an Us v Them when that claim is made.
If you agree with me that you cannot say one gender is more privileged than the other instead of disagreeing with me to then say you agree with me would it not be easier for you to go back and argue with those you actually disagree with? Those that are promoting the idea of a gender privilege?
Just because you can't objectively compare issues between genders, does not mean that neither group has an advantage over the other - obviously both groups do, in different areas.
Saying it's "already an Us vs Them" discussion, doesn't justify continuing down the path of an 'Us vs Them' debate.0 -
You are directly lying here to spin-shít and to smear me. It is part of your usual tactic in debates, of needlessly personalizing them and trying to brow-beat posters.The Corinthian wrote: »That point went out the window when you started to dismiss any disadvantages to being male.0 -
I don't think we should even be giving this the time of day.
Talking about it is only giving the idea more respect than it deserves.
I'd prefer if we ignored any talk of "privilege" in the hope that it just goes away!0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »There are some western countries with conscription still, but by and large, it is gone - as the map I linked shows.
People are missing the point as well: The entire point is that there is no objective way to compare downsides that either gender face, so don't compare them.
Just acknowledge the downsides women face with pregnancy, without having to counterpoint it with *insert random male downside*.
I'm happy to do that as long as feminists stop with the "women have it worse in general" and "men are the oppressor, women are the oppressed" bullsh!t. The ideal movement would be a gender neutral movement which recognises that all double standards are insidious and unacceptable, and fights to purge them from society. But that won't happen as long as the "privilege" argument is used to argue that some double standards are ok.0 -
Advertisement
-
The entire conscription issue was ancillary, so the undue focus on that is pretty much missing the point, that there is no way to compare male downsides here to pregnancy.Is this not exactly what you are doing? Most western countries have conscription ie they legally can demand men to serve, it is not currently in effect as there is no need seeing as most western countries are not actively engaged in large scale wars but the legal capacity to enact such conscription is still there and still is sexist in that it only applies to men. However you want to nitpick rather than debate so you say it doesn't exist, then when it is proven to you that it exists you say it's only a small number.
I asked you to clarify and you did not but when you say the western world does not have conscription are you implying it is not currently in action or that it is not possible under those countries laws?
If you're claiming - contrary to the previous link - that most western countries have conscription, you need to back that up with something.
Certainly, on a forum based in Ireland, citing conscription as an issue men face comes across as - at best - facetious.0
Advertisement