Why using Selective Service as an argument against feminism doesn’t work.
Bias against fathers in the family court system.
I’m having a hard time figuring out how you can possibly disagree with her. You think it’s okay for the military to lock up civilians because some soldiers couldn’t keep their dicks in their fatigues?
Actually, I think if you’re going to send a man to war, he ought to get a free fuck before he goes. (Not that a woman has to fuck him for free; just that the government ought to pay for it.)
Also, I don’t see anywhere in my post where I said, I think “it’s okay for the military to lock up civilians because some soldiers couldn’t keep their dicks in their fatigues?” Could you point that out to me?
And if you can’t, why are you pretending I said something I didn’t say?
The entire tone of your post is that it was much better for the military to quarantine the prostitutes than it would have been to quarantine the troops. If that’s not what you meant, feel free to clarify.
IAN RNATB and cannot speak for him [ETA: and anyway he just spoke for himself, so never mind?], but seems pretty evident to me that he was referring to your description of dealing with a military discipline issue by interfering with the freedom of civilians:
I would probably have paraphrased that as “lock down civilians” (in the sense of preventing anybody else from having access to them) rather than “lock up civilians” (which might seem to suggest actual imprisonment, which AFAICT didn’t happen), but the basic meaning is clear.
So, do you in fact disagree that it’s unjust to solve an institutional discipline problem by interfering with the freedom of others outside the institution?
For example, if you were running a diet camp, say, and the campers in your charge kept breaking curfew to go binge at a nearby pastry shop, would you consider it appropriate to quarantine the pastry shop and prevent it from doing business with your campers or anybody else? Or would you consider it your responsibility to make your camp’s discipline more effective without interfering with non-campers?
Well, this isn’t much like campers or camping, but if the question is, “was it fair to quarantine the prostitutes?” my answer is: “no”.
That was not the point of my comment, though.
The point is that the sexism involved in quarantining the prostitutes (if that’s what it was) pales in significance to the sexism of sending only men to war.
Not that I’m anti-sexism: I don’t think women should be sent to war.
Hardly. It wasn’t as if we sent men to war because they’re useless cannon fodder and we didn’t want to risk our wimmens. It’s because military commanders believed women wouldn’t be able to handle combat.
Don’t you ever ask them where they’re really from? Unless they’re Native American they should have an answer. White people don’t tend to be shy about talking about their ancestors coming over on the boat.
I don’t think there’s a symmetry there. Speaking as a white person, I’ve never had someone ask me where I’m from, and refuse to accept “California” as a valid answer. But this seems to be a very common experience among non-white people that I know.
Yes, I understand they’re being othered. I’m just offering a way to make it less awkward, or give them a hint they’re being silly.
That is a good start.
So, you know that the nut jobs are out there and should not be considered representative of a movement, yet you specifically use them as the archtypes, (or, more likely, stereotypes), when you think of the movement.
I do not see your point. This is not Great Anecdote Exchanges. Your actions are logically inconsistent with your recognition of the facts and yet you appear to be more comfortable holding your prejudices than facing and correcting their bases. (I realize that most of us have some emotional responses to phenomena about which we recognize that those responses are in conflict with facts. However, it seems odd to hold forth those emotional responses as a legitimate argument in opposition to the facts.)
If your reaction to an extreme example of a philosophy is to immediately categorize that extreme example as the type species/Species typica of that philosophy, you are the one who is in error, not the larger number of persons who do not hold that extreme view.
So, how do we know what feminists believe? As a whole, I mean; clearly you can find at least one individual feminist who believes just about anything, even on relatively noncontentious topics. Can we look at Jezebel’s treatement of various sensitive and contentious topics and draw conclusions about the mean feminist due to its relative popularity?
Clearly we can’t judge movements in general by the extremity of their asshole members, but how do we know when a movement is 5% asshole vs. 95%?
How do you know what scientists, artists, philanthropists, racists, communists, anarchists, environmentalists, and so on really believe? When you talk about large groups, you can only make very broad statements about their beliefs. This isn’t unique to feminism.
I might try it. I’ve never had a good response, especially since I actually was born in another country (though it was an even whiter one.) :mad:
And what about the friendly feminists?
I hear they’re above average.
Ah, so you disagree with iiandyiiii at the beginning of the thread? We can make only the broadest statements about feminism, and shouldn’t have strong opinions when someone declares their allegiance to or defection from feminism, since feminism could be something very good or something very bad?
Because that pretty clearly isn’t happening. People pretty clearly do have an opinion on what the average feminist thinks and does. Where does it come from?
I mean, I know a lot of reasonable feminists. I also read about several very distinctly unreasonable feminists. And I know enough that it’s really easy to fall into error by mistaking your local conditions for global ones. So, I wonder, when I see people on one hand saying that feminism isn’t a monolith, and on the other having very definite opinions that if people are encountering unreasonable feminists, they must be mistaken.
Depends on where you look. Feminism in the United States is primarily concerned with the plight of middle to upper class white women. Feminism in Afghanistan is a lot different.
Wiki lists 21 varieties of feminism, many of which disagree on fundamental issues. I might add TERFs to that, but I guess it’s just a subset of radfems.
I see iiandyii making a broad statement of the sort I was talking about. Not “only the broadest,” but then that isn’t what I said. The kind of general statement about general principles that is the only fair assessment of a big group of people classified by some philosophical label.
Whether or not people should have strong opinions, or whether they must all be mistaken if they think they’ve ever met any unreasonable feminists doesn’t really seem to me to be here or there. If you think the OP is right that women are guilty of mainstream gangsterism, and that that’s what feminism is all about, so the OP has been unfairly criticized for saying that, you’re taking a sort of Family Circus kind of a route to getting around to saying it. If you don’t, then presumably you think someone is some kind of stupid idiot for thinking something, but I’m not sure who that person is.
YMMV, but in the old days, the idea was that one of the reasons for the war was to protect the women. (Or at least, that was part of the propaganda. Of course, propaganda is called propaganda for a reason: the US, for example, hasn’t been invaded since 1812.) From some old war posters: (“Fight for her!”) Here’s another. And another. Drafting them defeats the purpose, if you’re fighting to keep women safe.
But you’re right: there’s no doubt they also thought women wouldn’t make good soldiers.
On the other hand, if your country is invaded, women are definitely not safe. For example, there’s this, and this, and this. So it’s not like the idea comes from nowhere.