94
95

The Lie of 'Women and Children' (aljazeera.com)

shikibu_murasaki が 投稿

全 118 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (68子コメント)

I stumbled across this article because of my interest in a feminist reading of the Iraq war, and this introduced me to a word for something I have noticed that really bothers me: "womenandchildren." From the article "'womenandchildren' allows leaders to frame wars as matters of national security, under the assumption that women and children must be protected for nations to be secure" but they then try to use feminism to justify the assumption that women must be non-combatants, while men must be combatants (the drone warfare that the US engages in often assumes a male of a certain age range is guilty until evidence is found that they aren't).

This article goes into what that means, how it is used in military actions taken by one group against another. It is mostly from a perspective of how it relates to women, but I was interested in starting a discussion with a focus on how this affects men [especially non-white men against whom the logic of negative innocence is often used within in the United States].

[–]venomouskitten 85 ポイント86 ポイント  (67子コメント)

As a feminist, I hate this phrase also. I wouldn't call it either misogynist or misandrist, but more just generally sexist. It infantilizes women by lumping them in with helpless children, and implies that men are just disposable weapon-holders. Both genders should be required to serve (eg. In the case of drafts), especially now that muscular strength is basically irrelevant to being a soldier.

[–]Sup3rB4d- 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (28子コメント)

I agree with everything except muscular strength being basically irrelevant to being a soldier. You should read up on how much weight in gear a typical soldier has to carry and function with. It's pretty insane.

[–]theninjallama 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Same here. We should set blanket standards for strength and ability regardless of gender. Anyone who meets those should be able to participate in combat.

[–]heimdahl81 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (13子コメント)

As it stands now a policy like this would still result in an overwhelmingly male military. I support a program of reducing the necessary strength requirements for a soldier through increased efficiency, decreased gear weight, and technological assistance.

[–]TNBK 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I support a program of reducing the necessary strength requirements for a soldier

The average weight of an infantryman's kit has stayed the same since Roman times. If you make gear lighter, they'll just take more of it with them.

[–]theninjallama 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Personally I very strongly believe that it is far more important to make sure our soldiers can handle the worst thrown at them on the battlefield than making sure our combat population is equitably distributed by gender.

[–]shaxshax 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

there's nothing wrong with an overwhelmingly male majority in the combat arms trades. Women can join the infantry, so long as they can ruck the weight as far and as long and as fast as we can

[–]SissySlutAlice 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

The only thing that will help this would be mech suits. You need to not only be able to carry everything on you but also carry or drag another fully equipped soldier as well. If there is a draft, and I get shot, you better be able to carry my ass out of the fire and vice versa. I have yet to see a woman, bar professional weight lifters, who can do that.

[–]heimdahl81 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

The military isn't and action movie. Soldiers aren't carrying their injured buddies to safety with a slow motion explosion going off behind them. Injured people get dragged to safety and a 120 lb woman can still drag a 200 lb man just fine. In any case, there will be a man or two women nearby who can step in and do the dragging.

[–]SissySlutAlice 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Really? So a 120 pound woman carrying an extra 40+ pounds of weight can drag a 200 pound man with his extra 40 pounds of weight in the middle of a combat situation just like that? I'm sorry but bullshit and pretty much every vet I've ever met agrees. I never mentioned Hollywood and sometimes yes you do need to physically lift and carry someone because the ground is so rough that dragging them would be more time consuming and more difficult as their gear gets snagged on everything under the sun. You can't dedicate multiple people to do something like move a casualty when simply having everyone be male mean that you only need one person to do it. You'd be objectively weakening your fighting force for zero actual benefit.

Testosterone is one hell of a drug, I know because I'm trying to get rid of it :p

[–]heimdahl81 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Other than the benefit of less men being used for cannon fodder...

[–]SissySlutAlice -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Fantastic sentiment, let me know how that goes once the war is over

[–]shaxshax -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

you've never been in a firefight eh

[–]OneWord-Plastic 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well women who aren't as strong can do drone strikes and other computer related things.

[–]EatMyBiscuits 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Most countries are not capable of drone warfare. Especially the countries toward which the phrase womenandchildren is projected.

[–]OneWord-Plastic 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those countries usually don't have equal rights anyways or they rely on other armies to do most of the work.

[–]heimdahl81 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Pushing more men into dangerous frontline roles.

[–]OneWord-Plastic 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It wouldn't be pushing more men into frontline roles. It would either stay the same or decrease the number of men since its often easier/safer to use drones. Also I didn't say that women shouldn't try to go into frontline roles but the standard also shouldn't be lowered.

[–]heimdahl81 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If anything, I could see them increasing the physical requirements for men to get more physically capable soldiers on the front lines since all the "safe" jobs can be filled with women.

[–]OneWord-Plastic 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I doubt that since its already hard to find good people so all they would be doing is shrinking to pool. The only way I could see that happening is if they want fewer people on the front lines, but then all of the "safe" could be filled by just men if they wanted too do it that way since their would be a surplus of men.

[–]KlvrDissident 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're assuming a field-related combat role for everyone. There are lots of ways for the enlisted to serve. For men and women who can't meet those requirements, I am 100% sure we can find a suitable way for them to serve -- especially if the situation is drastic enough for the draft to come back.

[–]RandyOfBrandywine 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So let's require our girls to be stronger. Most girls aren't pushing their abilities today. Granted, it's less necessary today anyway and many men aren't pushing their boundaries either, but that could very well work in favor of gender equality - smooth it down a little. It won't ever be totally equal, but that's all right. The important part is that girls and boys abilities be somewhere in the comparable range/introducing something of an overlap. In fact I think the low expectations since the dawn of time are kind of to blame for the difference, as well as the good ol' weaker=easier-to-rape theory. Edit: biology, obviously, but that difference could and should be brought down to minimum!

[–]Lung_doc 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They tried this. They wanted three pullups; half failed (marine training).

I'm still for equal opportunity, but the fact is that the upper body bell curves don't overlap by much.

Still, most positions in the military overall can be handled by women, and we definitely should make the draft coed.

[–]EatMyBiscuits 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Most girls aren't pushing their abilities today.

At a physical-potential, maybe. But I understand girls are outperforming boys in many (if not most) school subjects.

[–]RandyOfBrandywine 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I did mean the physical aspect. That was the one discussed before, too. Sorry for not being specific there.

[–]The_Kids_Lying 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (21子コメント)

I'm all for everyone registering for the draft, but I think that for field service, we need to have constant standards of physical fitness for persons of both sexes. Even if physical strength isn't as necessary in the actual fighting anymore, your average woman isn't going to be able to move an injured male who outweighs her by 40+ plus gear, or move as fast as a team of all men carrying their gear. Even if the actual fighting doesn't require as much strength, equal physical requirements should be maintained for all people working in the field.

[–]SoldierHawk 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (20子コメント)

I 100% agree with everything you said, except for one thing: I'd like the draft to go away entirely.

But that said, if we must keep it, there's absolutely no reason everyone shouldn't have to register and be affected by it. And if you don't like your 'women and children' registering for that draft, well, maybe you shouldn't make it a thing for anyone, eh?!

[–]_CryptoCat_ 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Grown men are still someone's children. Fuck the draft. If your war is worth fighting you won't need a draft as people will volunteer.

[–]drfeelokay 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fuck the draft. If your war is worth fighting you won't need a draft as people will volunteer.

In the absence of a culture of military prestige, I think we need a draft in order to make sure that the burden of fighting isn't put on the most disadvabtaged people in our society. I think we would avoid wars much more often if all young people were equally likely to end up dead.

[–]SoldierHawk 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

...That was exactly my point though? I'm sorry if I offended you.

[–]wishthane 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think they were just restating your point in passionate agreement.

[–]SoldierHawk 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ahhhh gotcha. That makes sense. Reddit has ruined me lol.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

To play devils advocate, do you think that an active draft might make people more aware of the wars that their country takes part in, or more willing to do things to stop the war from continuing? Because it seems there is a blase attitude in the US in regards to war, almost indifference even that needs to change.

[–]SoldierHawk 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, I honestly don't. Well--maybe? But I doubt it.

People with money and power would find a way to get them and theirs out of it. It would be fought primarily by the poor, who would either be whipped up into such a patriotic frenzy that they'd be 'happy to do their part to sacrifice together' and/or would be shouted down/thrown in jail/exiled/shamed/etc if they tried to protest or avoid it.

The draft is in no way an anti-war tool. It wouldn't be invoked if they weren't ready to handle the backlash.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It wouldn't be invoked if they weren't ready to handle the backlash.

Yeah, this is critical. The draft was taken away to calm protests so Nixon could engage in deeper bombing campaigns without public outcry, which worked... So, you are probably right it wouldn't come back unless they knew they could get away with it.

[–]theninjallama 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being drafted doesn't mean they have to fight on the front lines

[–]Mysteriousdeer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Part of being a country is accepting borders between people. As long as there are borders, there will be wars. The draft can at least act as a societal equalizer in the right context, upper society people could be made to have the same skin in the game as lower.

[–]SoldierHawk 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's not like we've never had a draft.

Has it EVER worked that way? I don't think so.

[–]drfeelokay 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

t's not like we've never had a draft. Has it EVER worked that way? I don't think so.

Yes, the burden of fighting and dying was more evenly disributed across class divisions in the past. When you talk to older people of high socio-economic status, they are far more likely to have served in a war. Until very recently, military service was often seen as an important step on the way to success - it was part of what constituted a "gentleman".

[–]SoldierHawk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

True--but I would argue that those people served out of a personal or familial sense of obligation, not because they were drafted. People of higher social status or means had the option, for example, of going to college. Of serving in the Guard or Reserves, and so on. They had ways out if they wanted them that weren't available to others, and so the poor were/are much more affected by a draft.

[–]drfeelokay 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

True--but I would argue that those people served out of a personal or familial sense of obligation, not because they were drafted. People of higher social status or means had the option, for example, of going to college.

I totally agree - but I also think that we could easily design a draft that didn't contain loopholes for the rich.q

[–]SoldierHawk 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We could...but why would we? The rich make the rules. The BURDEN will still be on the poor; the CHOICE will be with the rich.

I dunno though. I don't think the draft will work as an anti-war tool. The only time it would be implemented at this point anyway is a last resort.

I'm curious where your argument is coming from--and I don't mean in the snide and annoying 'curious' way, I mean I genuinely don't see what your overall opinion/argument is. Are you saying you want the selective service to stay in place (perhaps with changes?)

[–]Mysteriousdeer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Highest ranking member on the beaches at normandy was a roosevelt with a cane.

[–]SoldierHawk 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

...Was he drafted?

[–]Mysteriousdeer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He was a roosevelt, he didnt need to be

[–]allonsyyy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Didn't the president get like five or six deferments during the last draft?

I mean, I'd like to live in the world you describe, but I'm stuck here soo...

[–]shaxshax 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

as a soldier, muscular strength is imperative to the job hahaha

[–]venomouskitten 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I more meant to say the gender-based discrepancy is irrelevant haha 😂

[–]TNBK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's amazing that pointing this out got you banished to the bottom of the reply pile.

[–]ScottVandeberg 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I think the women and children thing is much much large than just war though. And it is without a doubt misandrist. There are literally thousands of women and children shelters/programs/housing. WIC (women infant children) is a huge welfare program that explicitly excludes men for no reason other than focusing on single mothers (instead of single parents). Low income housing is usually offered to single mothers first and foremost despite the fact men are more likely to be homeless. Domestic violence shelters are 99.99% women and children only even though men are just as likely to experience abuse. During disasters the common ideology is still women and children first, not because men are less likely to die, but because men are seen as disposable. War is taught primarily by men for a lot of reasons but 1 of which is because society doesn't have a problem with a man dying/suffering/hurting.

[–]venomouskitten 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This might be somewhat dependent on location as well. In my country, men's shelters are common and most shelters in general are co-ed.

Ultimately, the sexist idea that women need male protection and men are protectors and expected to be disposable is the issue here. By getting at that root issue, we can help subvert the systems that throw men out in the cold and assume women to be helpless.

[–]StartingVortex 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The key problem with "violence against women and children" isn't that male victims of DV are not supported. It's that it frames the issue as male violence against women and children, when the fact is that women are more likely to be violent against children than men.

Whatever the ratio of male vs female DV is, if we want to stop it, we need to stop the cycle. That means recognizing that the real hazard of the current system is that the "women and children" stereotype often as not traps children with the more violent person.

[–]alterumnonlaedere 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

An example being the Australian domestic and family violence strategy, implemented in The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

[–]ScottVandeberg 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an excellent point as well.

[–]allonsyyy 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

WIC is only for people who are pregnant, or postpartum and breast feeding. Single dads can enroll their children in WIC.

The name might be a bit off-putting to single dads, you might have a point there.

[–]ScottVandeberg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The program is designed specifically for mothers however. Even in the descriptions it does not mention fathers at all. And, although a father's children can get support from this, the father cannot. A new father of a new born child would not receive the same assistance a new mother would.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/frequently-asked-questions-about-wic

[–]raanne 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The women only get the support if they are breastfeeding, and IIRC they don't qualify for as much (or any?) formula then. They should just rename it "infants/children" though.

[–]allonsyyy 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A father who was pregnant or breast feeding would qualify. One who is not, would not.

There are other programs for people who are not pregnant or breast feeding, (SNAP) this one is just for those who are. Being pregnant and breast feeding require extra calories, that's what WIC is trying to satisfy.

I mean, I think we should probably just hand needy people cash and stop trying to micro manage them, but it is what it is. Food benefits programs are Byzantine like that.

[–]raanne 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't disagree, but also I thought women only qualified for wic if they were pregnant or actively breastfeeding?

[–]RandyOfBrandywine 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's one of those "two sides of the same coin" issues. If one bias didn't exist, neither would the other. It could be helped from both perspectives, but there's been a lot of work done to shake the idea that women need protection and should be lumped in with children, while the ideas that "men need protection, too" and "men aren't there just to protect women and children" just haven't been paraded as openly. Nobody's dealt with that shit. So naturally the focus is wonky in some western societies. This is the cure for soft/benevolent sexism, people. Liberating Men. 'Tis the answer!

[–]TNBK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

especially now that muscular strength is basically irrelevant to being a soldier.

You actually couldn't be more wrong about this.

[–]venomouskitten [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

See one of the other replies I made. Obviously it matters a great deal, but the male-female discrepancy is next to irrelevant given technological advances. Wording is hard :)

[–]jake50231 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (30子コメント)

I take a lot of issues with this article.

First of all it seems to criticize Obama for criticizing chemical weapons because "all weapons are cruel". Does whoever wrote this article even know the effect of sarin gas on people? I'd much rather be shot or bombed than gassed.

The writer of the article also seems to make the argument that children should not be protected more than adults which is just straight up insane.

I also generally understand why we are disgusted by women and children being attacked in war. It's because for the most part women and children are non combatants and it's incredibly immoral to attack people who pose no threats.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

First of all it seems to criticize Obama for criticizing chemical weapons because "all weapons are cruel".

Because he is fundamentally hypocritical, how does bombing civilians protect them from that civilian's oppressive government? He is criticizing Syria for attacking its own citizens, while we attack its citizens and have trade deals/ cozy relationships with countries that behead their own citizens for performing sorcery.

The writer of the article also seems to make the argument that children should not be protected more than adults which is just straight up insane.

A different article she did go a bit more into the idea of protecting children. She agrees that children should be protected because they are more dependent than adults are, but also is critical of the depiction of children as automatically "innocents" because of the fact that many children in the middle east are combatants (child soldiers) yet older men are considered guilty automatically. She says this is a way of profiling these men as monsters that any force can be used against to save the "innocents" from.

Plus the US constantly performs "double tap bombing" where they attack an area once, then attacks it again to kill people giving medical help to the victims of the first bombing. So it is fairly evident that the US doesn't really cares about innocents very much.

[–]EatMyBiscuits 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are we really granting child soldiers the agency to be held accountable for their actions in war?

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, it's not about agency, but children do take part in terrorist activity so there is no way to say that it is right to predetermine adult males as "combatants" and children as "innocents" unilaterally.

[–]EatMyBiscuits 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess I'm saying that the children are innocent regardless. In the same way there is no way a child can consent to a relationship with an adult, a child cannot consent to being a soldier.

Child soldiers need rescuing.

This is a separate argument to the presumption of man as combatants.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree that they need help, but they are classified as "innocents" so that those adults can be dehumanized as being their persecutors for the brave US to save those innocents from.

I am sorry for lack of clarity, but I think she is saying that they may be innocent themselves, but they are also constructed as "innocents" by the US in order to allow for the dehumanizing that are applied to these adults around them.

[–]absentbird 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (23子コメント)

I'd much rather be shot or bombed than gassed.

As long as it kills you I don't really see what difference your preference makes. It's like saying "I would much rather die from poisoned apple pie than from a poisoned ricecake."

[–]jake50231 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Well to me an instant death from the bomb or a quick death from a gunshot sounds preferable to drowning because my lungs are full of blood.

[–]PrototypeNM1 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You should look up the Highway of Death and some of the associated photography. Bombs are not necessarily as clean as popular opinion presumes.

[–]jake50231 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay fine not everyone is killed instantly in a bombstrike. Still far less painful than dying in a chemical weapons attack.

[–]absentbird 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Well to me the issue is that people are being murdered by their government. I don't see why it matters how painful the death is.

[–]StartingVortex 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (6子コメント)

That's crazy. Everyone dies. How much pain is involved on the part of the victim and those left behind matters a great deal.

[–]absentbird -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why does it matter how much pain they suffer while dying?

[–]StartingVortex 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why does any positive or negative experience matter?

Does the fact that a person has died mean their experiences didn't happen?

[–]absentbird -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because our experiences shape our perception of the world and inform our actions. Corpses don't have perception and can't take action. Why do you feel the experience of dying matters?

[–]StartingVortex 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So you'll be dead one day, therefore, nothing you experience now matters.

[–]absentbird 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, because I can still make perceptions, take actions, influence the people around me, etc. Do you see what I'm saying?

[–]SlowFoodCannibal 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If you think how painful death is doesn't matter...you're probably young and don't have any experience helping loved ones through their death yet. Not that I wish that on you but it does tend to change that perspective. We all die. But the degree of suffering varies greatly and does matter a great deal to the person suffering and those who love them.

[–]absentbird -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sarin gas usually kills within 10 minutes of a lethal dose, we aren't talking weeks vs seconds here, it's ~10 minutes of bleeding out vs ~10 minutes of horrendously painful agony. Either way they're dead, what difference does the magnitude of pain make?

[–]comfortablesexuality 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right, pain doesn't matter so we should never use morphine on terminal patients

[–]jake50231 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

By that standard what difference does the magnitude of pain matter in any situation? We're all gonna die eventually what does it matter if we get tortured on the way there?

[–]absentbird -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because our experiences shape our perceptions and future actions. But corpses cannot perceive or act.

[–]SlowFoodCannibal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hope that if you're ever in a caregiving role to someone dying in pain that you find some compassion. Otherwise being in your care would fucking suck.

I agree with your point about government wrong-doing being the correct emphasis; you don't need to invalidate the value of compassion for the pain of the dying in order to make that point.

[–]absentbird -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least I don't eat people.

[–]Livinglifeform [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"people are being murdered by their government."

And people are being murdered by the western backed rebels. And not just with guns, chemical weapons like the attack on april the 4th.

[–]littlepersonparadox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sarin gas is a little ... Unsettling to say the least. Its not exactly like compareing being poisioned one way vs. Pousioning the other. Saringas causes a rather frightning death. it messes with the nurotransmitters causeing quick paralysis as you die from being unable to breath.

https://youtu.be/jozozH09XSs

Takes a tiney amount to cause the problem. With bombs and bullets your dieing from being peirced, blood loss and i suppose G forces /impact. The outcome is the same but the experiance durring death is compleately different. I wouldnt advocate the use of any weapon but biological weapons tend to be a very differnt death than tradional weponry. And of course theres the matter that with gas its a lot easier to fu*ck up and hit your own solders and surrounding cavillians if you let it lose on the battlefield. Realse it freely and everyone is at mercy of the wind.

[–]absentbird 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, the gas is a lot less controllable and the fact it was used on their own people shows a terrifying disregard for the safety of their citizens. It just seems to me like the pain involved in death isn't a super relevant concern, the more pressing fact to me is that the people are being murdered by their own government.

[–]Livinglifeform [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There is absaloutely no evidence that assad carried out the attacks. The syrian government got rid of their nuclear weapons in 2014.

[–]JackBinimbul 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The inherent implication that women and children are somehow more valuable and naturally less culpable gets my blood boiling. I am a transgender man. Why was I worthy of safety before I transitioned, but not now?

[–]moe_overdose 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I agree that the phrase "women and children" sucks, because everyone deserves to be equally protected, regardless of gender. I just wish the article mentioned that it's misandrist, not misogynist. The idea that misandry exists is still controversial and often mocked by many people, so it would be good to actually point it out in cases like this.

I also disagree with the second part of the article, about "misogynist nation-building". The writer refers to the fact that some nations are referred to as "motherlands" by their people. But this is a very respectful way to refer to your nation, so I'd say it's the opposite of misogynist. And in many countries the word is "fatherland".

[–]anillop 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Unfortunately it often seems like feminist writers will avoid using the term misandry like the plague. Its like they feel if they start using the term then they might validate it and raise the possibility that it might not just be men that are sexist and that women can be sexist against men.

[–]RandyOfBrandywine 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Or you know, attract irrational responses from whiny MensRighters. It's understandable, even if they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and I don't support that at all. Both misandry and misogyny have kind of lost half their meaning to reactionary groups in an infuriating way though.

[–]TheoremaEgregium 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

These reactionary groups have popularized the word misandry. Despite them being counterproductive, reactionary and all that, but credit where it's due. It's only been a few years ago (I remember) when the standard response by feminists to inquiries about anything in context of misandry was "It does not exist. In fact, it's not even a real word. It's not in my dictionary, it's just made up."

I remember a feminist arguing with dogged persistence "Men already have a perfectly fine word for describing how the system hurts them: It's misogyny". Of course, if you stringently reason with the common feminist axioms that's the conclusion you will reach. But I believe I am not the only man who feels this diction is somehow … lacking.

Without these reactionaries, reviled and hated as they (possibly deservedly) may be, we would not even have a word to describe our plight. Today the term is not contested much any more.

[–]RandyOfBrandywine -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure anyone with a brain can think up the word. Anyone with the random thought of "if that is misogyny, what is the...?" entering their mind. I've heard people openly debate if maybe "men are just egoisitcally ugly, hairy creatures by birthright", so by all means, it is a very real distinct form of hate, but I hardly see that idea as some result of the MensRights movement or similar ones. If I encounter male people being hated based on their sex, it's misandry. Analogous to misogyny. It was never a question to begin with; pay no attention to that idiot who said that things are otherwise. Popularizing, maybe, but also tainting and misusing the word, are also the result of those reactionaries ridiculous outcries and messings around. (Same goes for "misogyny", largely). I guess it's ultimately up to sane people to reuse the words in their original places and appropriate contexts, either way.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It might not be entirely clear, but the article is more of a response to the way that Feminism has been weaponized in order to push for wars; claiming that these women need the US to protect them from misogyny. This is a feminist response based on the perspective of one woman, I put it here because I was interested in hearing a different angle on this discussion.

While I agree with the general idea that the second part is trying to get, I don't think that it is argued very convincingly.

[–]StartingVortex 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That excuse for war is much older than feminism.

[–]shikibu_murasaki[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but that older argument is now being argued with feminist language.

[–]jungeleliane 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would be willing to bet that appealing to the welfare of women is a lot more older than feminism.

[–]pareil 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

it's misandrist, not misogynist

It's pretty clearly misogynist to lump women in with children as an aggregate group that is in need of an equal amount of protection. Certainly the "women and children" construct has negative consequences for men as well as for women, indeed life-threatening ones. But that doesn't preclude it from being misogynist.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd much rather be lumped in with children as "important to save" than have my life considered unworthy of saving.

[–]StartingVortex 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The writer groups womenandchildren together. Her points about war being hazardous to everyone are valid, and her points about gender are valid. But about children, not so much. We value children's lives above adults for solid, rational reasons:

  • A child has more of their life to live, and more life to lose. This concept is used throughout safety-related and medical policies to make ethical decisions: "potential years of life lost".
  • Trauma to a child will affect a larger portion of their life
  • Trauma to a child will affect their future children, so preventing trauma to children is how you can stop the cycle of trauma and violence
  • The death of a child causes terrible suffering to parents. I'm old enough to have seen many kinds of suffering, and death of a child beats out them all.

[–]OneWord-Plastic 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just a thought... While I agree with the idea of protecting 'women and children' in the case of the titanic is horribly sexists and ridiculous, when it comes with wars like the one we are having with ISIS it seems to be the more logical humanitarian things to focus on. In those regions its the men who have far more to lose if they become westernized, so trying to indoctrinate them to accept western values like equality is much harder than it is to do with young people and oppressed women. From my personal experience when I was in France I was only/constantly sexually harassed by middle eastern immigrant men. I couldn't even walk alone by myself without getting pinned. So while I want the number of refugees allowed in to increase, I would feel better/safer if it was women and kids because they can "melt" into our culture faster. Its not that men are more violent its that the culture some of them are coming from it just too toxic. I know not everyone is the same but when you are dealing with large numbers of people who need to relocate all you can really do is generalize and categorize.

[–]StartingVortex 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In those regions its the men who have far more to lose if they become westernized...

I knew immigrants back in school who would disagree. Western sexual freedom was a major benefit for them, and not having to see their sexual partners as in any way shameful was half of that. Several were overjoyed at religious freedom here; one become an active atheist, another screamed "THERE IS NO GOD" in a public park. These were young men though, so maybe they found it easier to adapt.