White Male Privilege

tritium

zeffabelli wrote: »

No, you are ignoring the advances in technology - more and more use of drones...less men.

You might be right...after all this is speculation....but why? It is because female fertility would be a liability in the context of war.

But you're also ignoring advances in technology which have given women an historically unprecedented level of control over their fertility as well as safer and less painful pregnancy than any previous generation. And sure its not perfect, any more than the drones you mention will eliminate young predominantly male cannon fodder, but both these technological aspects are only going to improve (though I'd wager we'll be able to remove all risk of pregnancy long we stop throwing soldiers into machine gun fire)

zeffabelli

tritium wrote: »

But you're also ignoring advances in technology which have given women an historically unprecedented level of control over their fertility as well as safer and less painful pregnancy than any previous generation. And sure its not perfect, any more than the drones you mention will eliminate young predominantly male cannon fodder, but both these technological aspects are only going to improve (though I'd wager we'll be able to remove all risk of pregnancy long we stop throwing soldiers into machine gun fire)

Im disputing the fantasy that we will have another draft.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

No, you are ignoring the advances in technology - more and more use of drones...less men.

You might be right...after all this is speculation....but why? It is because female fertility would be a liability in the context of war.

*Fewer men. (Stannis moment couldn't resist sorry)

What hasn't changed in centuries of human warfare is the fact that infantry wins wars. While it has evolved into a massive element, no war in history has been won yet by air power alone. Therefore, until the technology advances to the point of being capable of fulfilling the role of infantry flesh, blood and boots will always be needed on the ground. These boots are filled, have always been filled and will always be filled overwhelmingly by young men.

This isn't an accident.

Military technology has advanced frighteningly throughout history. The advent of gunpowder slowly removed much of the need for brute strength in a soldier. Yet, women still weren't conscripted or used as soldiers to any large degree even in crises of manpower. Only one constant remains- males do the fighting.

Young men are biologically most suited to warfare and socially most acceptable to sacrifice in it.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

Im disputing the fantasy that we will have another draft.

It's unlikely, yes, but do you accept that if there were young men would be called up first and women would quite likely enjoy an exemption?

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

It's unlikely, yes, but do you accept that if there were young men would be called up first and women would quite likely enjoy an exemption?

No I do not accept that the draft would be reactivated in the first place.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

No I do not accept that the draft would be reactivated in the first place.

Reactivated? When was it first activated?

Anyway, that wasn't the question. If a draft were imposed on the nation who do you imagine would be drafted and who do you imagine would enjoy exemptions?

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

Reactivated? When was it first activated?

Anyway, that wasn't the question. If a draft were imposed on the nation who do you imagine would be drafted and who do you imagine would enjoy exemptions?

You are asking me to speculate. Answer is I am not a prophet or a lady with a purple bandana and a crystal ball.

Are you?

NI24

In the style of tritium here's a quick summary

NO camp: No, it doesn't, for the following reasons
Yes camp: Yes it does, for the following reasons
NO camp:No it doesn't, because video games are criticized
Yes camp: Yes it does, because women are subject to just as many double standards
NO camp: But men are judged on looks too!
Yes camp:Uhhh, no they're not
NO camp:But men are judged on success!
Yes camp:How is something genetic and superficial comparable to success?
NO camp:Men have conscription!
Yes camp:Women are at a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from.
NO camp:Men die younger!
Yes camp:That is due to several factors that change throughout culture and time
NO camp:Men have weaker immune systems!
Yes camp: Women have weaker bodies, and, in addition, have a distinct disadvantage that men are immune from
NO camp:How is that mens' fault? It's not because of patriarchy! Stop whining!
Yes camp: What does that have to do with privilege?
No camp:......................................................Did we mention conscription?

hatrickpatrick

NI24 wrote: »

NO camp:Men die younger!
Yes camp:That is due to several factors that change throughout culture and time

This bit summarises one of my fundamental issues with feminism, and this ties into what I said about education, young women earning more, double standards against men, etc etc etc.

When women have a disadvantage, it's blamed on sexism, which is seen as artificial. When men suffer an equivalent disadvantage, a lot of feminists shout "ah, but context / biological factors / macro-cultural factors / other 'legitimate' causes". So in other words, any double standards men suffer from, some feminists will always defend as being caused on "legitimate" grounds and there for not being wrong, immoral, or unjust.

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

I don't agree with any of your views on domestic violence, I think its complicated, sometimes the couple is sado masochistic, sometimes there is depression, some times there is abuse by proxy, somtimes there are subtle collusions. I don't think anyone is automatically an asshole, sometimes they are yeah, but sometimes they are flawed or stressed or damaged.

Your statement here is entirely reductive of human nature and the complexity of domestic abuse and absolutely laden with moralising. You are allowing yourself to get brainwashed by politically correct nonsense from both the femnists and the mens rights groups.

NI24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This bit summarises one of my fundamental issues with feminism, and this ties into what I said about education, young women earning more, double standards against men, etc etc etc.

When women have a disadvantage, it's blamed on sexism, which is seen as artificial. When men suffer an equivalent disadvantage, a lot of feminists shout "ah, but context / biological factors / macro-cultural factors / other 'legitimate' causes". So in other words, any double standards men suffer from, some feminists will always defend as being caused on "legitimate" grounds and there for not being wrong, immoral, or unjust.

This I have a huge problem. In particular, the violence against women double standard - "when women commit domestic violence, it's for different reasons / context / whatever". This basically amounts to saying "domestic violence is ok under some circumstances, and those circumstances just happen to coincide with the circumstances under which women do it. If a man does it though, he's automatically an asshole, no questions asked."

Now I fully agree with the latter statement - if a man commits domestic violence, he's automatically an asshole no questions asked. But I apply exactly the same standard to women, and this is where I seem to part company with most modern feminists. Double standards, sexism, and both misogyny and misandry are 100%, unconditionally unacceptable - no amount of context can justify either. Whereas a lot of feminists, if you strip down the rhetoric to its basic elements, seem to say "well women face disadvantages because of unacceptable sexism, but men face disadvantages because of legitimate reasons."

That argument in and of itself is fundamentally sexist and discriminatory.

And you could say the same about the disadvantages against women hatrick. How many in here were dismissing the fertility issues women face with, well, in ireland you don't have to worry, or if you don't like it, change your gender. Both sides are equally guilty of trivializing, however, most in here turn a blind eye to the trivializing of the Yes Male Privilege side.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

*Fewer men. (Stannis moment couldn't resist sorry)

What hasn't changed in centuries of human warfare is the fact that infantry wins wars. While it has evolved into a massive element, no war in history has been won yet by air power alone. Therefore, until the technology advances to the point of being capable of fulfilling the role of infantry flesh, blood and boots will always be needed on the ground. These boots are filled, have always been filled and will always be filled overwhelmingly by young men.

This isn't an accident.

Military technology has advanced frighteningly throughout history. The advent of gunpowder slowly removed much of the need for brute strength in a soldier. Yet, women still weren't conscripted or used as soldiers to any large degree even in crises of manpower. Only one constant remains- males do the fighting.

Young men are biologically most suited to warfare and socially most acceptable to sacrifice in it.

They are not going to want to limit that possibility with the threat of annihilation because you wont be able to replace the lives you lose if you draft young women. You will also have to deal with pregnancies and babies if you draft them in there.

There will never be another draft. They will nuke before they have to do that again.

Also if you look at the history of the draft, at least in British and US military, it is very tied up with class, and who was sent to shed their blood.

How many leaders now actually have military experience. Not many.

Do you know why the draft protests started in the US? When the college exemption was lifted and young men were being forced out of college...it wasn't until the privalaged classes were feeling it that any one gave a crap.

Don't worry though, all you have to do now is say you are gay.:P Oh wait....no you can't even do that anymore thanks to the egalitarianists....

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

dancing around the actual question

So, you accept that in the event of a draft young men would be called first?


It's a hypothetical.

It's also a simple yes or no you are knotting yourself to avoid.

C'mon. Answer it. While you still have a shred of credibility.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

So, you accept that in the event of a draft young men would be called first?


It's a hypothetical.

It's also a simple yes or no you are knotting yourself to avoid.

C'mon. Answer it. While you still have a shred of credibility.

No I don't know, especially with today's referendum. I have no idea what cultural climate would be in this theoretical future.

Is lean towards women also being drafted, if there was a draft which I think there is no chance in hell would ever happen.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

No I don't know, especially with today's referendum. I have no idea what cultural climate would be in this theoretical future.

Is lean towards women also being drafted, if there was a draft which I think there is no chance in hell would ever happen.

Today's referendum has exactly zero to do with the relative disposability of the genders.

If you believe women would also be drafted you are the one indulging in fantasy.

Grand, you can't really be reasoned with. You refuse to answer directly the most simple questions if the evident answer doesn't conform to your own, narrow view.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't agree with any of your views on domestic violence, I think its complicated, sometimes the couple is sado masochistic,

If it's consensual then it isn't abuse.

sometimes there is depression,

This does nto and never will excuse abusive behaviour.

some times there is abuse by proxy,

Elaborate?

somtimes there are subtle collusions. I don't think anyone is automatically an asshole, sometimes they are yeah, but sometimes they are flawed or stressed or damaged.

If you are abusive to your partner for any of the aforementioned reasons, in my view you're a jerk. That's just me though.

Do you agree that there is a gendered double standard here?

Your statement here is entirely reductive of human nature and the complexity of domestic abuse and absolutely laden with moralising. You are allowing yourself to get brainwashed by politically correct nonsense from both the femnists and the mens rights groups.

I don't think regarding intimate partner abuse as inexcusable regardless of gender is in any way flawed thinking. Human nature and complexity can also lead to murder, theft, any number of crimes - yet none make those crimes acceptable.

kowloon

DeadHand wrote: »

If you believe women would also be drafted you are the one indulging in fantasy.

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

DeadHand

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

Nonsense.

Name one Western country that extended conscription to females in war time.

Women tend to work predominately in services or bureaucracies. Hardly vital industries in times of desperation.

PhlegmyMoses

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

I don't know much about this male privilege thing, - It probably exists, but is not nearly as significant as people think - but conscription for males still exists in loads of western and westernised countries

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it's consensual then it isn't abuse.



This does nto and never will excuse abusive behaviour.



Elaborate?



If you are abusive to your partner for any of the aforementioned reasons, in my view you're a jerk. That's just me though.

Do you agree that there is a gendered double standard here?



I don't think regarding intimate partner abuse as inexcusable regardless of gender is in any way flawed thinking. Human nature and complexity can also lead to murder, theft, any number of crimes - yet none make those crimes acceptable.

YEah I just don't see it as cut and dried like that.

kowloon

DeadHand wrote: »

Nonsense.

Name one Western country that extended conscription to females in war time.

Women tend to work predominately in services or bureaucracies. Hardly vital industries in times of desperation.

Precedent in regards to women in combat, should have made that clear. But some countries do have conscripted women, but not in a war afaik. Unless you Israel.

As for vital industries: You have to make sure people in vital industries don't end up being drafted (or even volunteering) for obvious reasons. Hence a good way to open up your recruitment pool would be to also conscript women.

Those 'times of desperation' are the times when old fashioned BS gets thrown aside. Men abandoning industry in large numbers, often to be wiped out (see pals Btns) got women into male dominated jobs in both world wars.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I don't know much about this male privilege thing, - It probably exists, but is not nearly as significant as people think - but conscription for males still exists in loads of western and westernised countries

Not disputing that. Just saying should a major draft happen again it's not that unlikely that it would extend to women.

Sand

kowloon wrote: »

I doubt any kind of draft is likely in this day and age, masses of poorly trained draftees serve little purpose. But if it was to happen I can believe a western power would extend it to both sexes. You don't want to waste people in vital industries by drafting them, makes sense to widen the pool. It's not without precedent.

That's why military training exists. Poorly trained draftees are not much use, but WW2 was won by well trained draftees. Of course, you prefer having high quality, highly motived volunteers, but in a total war scenario quantity has a quality all of its own. Even outside direct military service, drafts ensure people are assigned where their skills or experience are needed in a national struggle. But given their natural physical advantages and the reinforced "Don't hit girls" meme, men would be most likely to be assigned to the areas with white hot metal fragments flying around.

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

zeffabelli

Sand wrote: »

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

DeadHand

kowloon wrote: »

Precedent in regards to women in combat, should have made that clear. But some countries do have conscripted women, but not in a war afaik. Unless you Israel.

As for vital industries: You have to make sure people in vital industries don't end up being drafted (or even volunteering) for obvious reasons. Hence a good way to open up your recruitment pool would be to also conscript women.

Those 'times of desperation' are the times when old fashioned BS gets thrown aside. Men abandoning industry in large numbers, often to be wiped out (see pals Btns) got women into male dominated jobs in both world wars.

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals and a constant existential crisis and so is irrelevant to the argument of conscription in the West and how it pertains to the myth of "white male privilege".

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Because males are biologically fitted to make, generally, superior soldiers. And, more pertinently, are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable one.

zeffabelli

DeadHand wrote: »

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals and a constant existential crisis and so is irrelevant to the argument of conscription in the West and how it pertains to the myth of "white male privilege".

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Because males are biologically fitted to make, generally, superior soldiers. And, more pertinently, are, far from being the privileged sex, the disposable one.

Huh? Norway has voted females into conscription.

The remaining countries are Austria and Switzerland....

No other western country practises it...so you have three countries in total, two of which are Germanic, and one of them does conscript women also.

Seriously.....you are not convincing.

DeadHand

zeffabelli wrote: »

Huh? Norway has voted females into conscription.

The remaining countries are Austria and Switzerland....

No other western country practises it...so you have three countries in total, two of which are Germanic, and one of them does conscript women also.

Seriously.....you are not convincing.

I'm not sure what being loosely Germanic has to do with anything.

I've looked it up and still don't see where the three Western countries mentioned conscript females. Can you produce links to support your unconvincing assertions?

Irregardless, it still doesn't disprove my argument as all three countries are, thankfully, at peace.

kowloon

DeadHand wrote: »

Israel isn't a Western country and is one that happens to be suffering a manpower shortage in comparison to her rivals.

Tell the OECD and the people running the Eurovision. Lets say 'Westernised nations', that way Oz and NZ don't feel left out either. The comparative manpower shortage is exactly the condition I expect would bring about conscription for women anywhere else in the west, so Israel is a great example.

Women have never and won't ever be conscripted in the West.

Women were conscripted in the Second World War in Britain, limited in role and with exemptions, but conscription nonetheless.

Sand wrote: »

No successful tribe has sent its women to do the fighting whilst keeping its men at home to raise the next generation of the tribe.

When did I suggest that?

Countries are abandoning conscription these days, it's too expensive to train in peacetime. WW2 was not won by 'well trained' draftees, even the countries that could afford it didn't train anywhere near adequately.

Things have moved on in 70 years, rushing a recruit through a few weeks training and handing them a rifle doesn't cut it, hence countries dropping conscription as it serves little military purpose. You'll see people arguing in favour of it for social (societal?) reasons and military officials argue against it as it takes away funds that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

I'm not sure a nation would impose conscription on women to make some sort of point about social justice. It would be a casting aside of tradition.
People being drafted and wars in general aren't good, but as far as women's lib is concerned desperate times have pushed resulted in a more equal society in the past. Rosie the mechanic is something peacetime couldn't replicate so easily.

DeadHand

kowloon wrote: »

Tell the OECD and the people running the Eurovision. Lets say 'Westernised nations', that way Oz and NZ don't feel left out either. The comparative manpower shortage is exactly the condition I expect would bring about conscription for women anywhere else in the west, so Israel is a great example.



Women were conscripted in the Second World War in Britain, limited in role and with exemptions, but conscription nonetheless.

Israel is an exceptional case. Being, as it is, surrounded by oceans of Islamic barbarism it needs all the bodies it can summon in order to survive.

Only in desperation does a nation risk its females.

Always the burden of fighting and dying will fall first on the males. There's your "privilege".

MathDebater

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true.

Yet I don't think it would stop the egalitarian sense of "justice and equality" pursue women for a draft, even if it did mean losing a war or a significant drop in a birth rate.

You think a country would keep their sense of "egalitarianism" and that they would draft equally from the sexes, even if it meant them losing a war?

DEFTLEFTHAND

In the Human race War is for Men. It's one of these biological facts that's impossible to refute. When you break us down we're like many mammal animal species, the males fight and protect, the womans major function is to reproduce.