Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Eric Cartman

Its funny how many people on this thread have come to the conclusion that ‘men should band together to represent themselves’ , yet as small as it was, look up anything about mens rights activism, MRA is used as a slur, mens rights activists are universally labeled as women haters/ rape apologists etc.. , the feminist lot have NGO’s and the medias ear , allowing a collective of mens rights advocates any sympathy dollars or airtime would be a nightmare so many feminist groups have doubled down on trying to silence mra groups

Silentcorner

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its funny how many people on this thread have come to the conclusion that ‘men should band together to represent themselves’ , yet as small as it was, look up anything about mens rights activism, MRA is used as a slur, mens rights activists are universally labeled as women haters/ rape apologists etc.. , the feminist lot have NGO’s and the medias ear , allowing a collective of mens rights advocates any sympathy dollars or airtime would be a nightmare so many feminist groups have doubled down on trying to silence mra groups

That has been going on for decades in the Domestic Violence Industry, it is shameful stuff...no other word for it!

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

That has been going on for decades in the Domestic Violence Industry, it is shameful stuff...no other word for it!

You will have to excuse another stupid question?

What is the domestic violence industry.

Wibbs

anewme wrote: »

Insinuating that anyone would care less about boys or girls kidnapped and in danger is something I find abhorrent.

To most people, they are all children. They should not be used to push an Agenda.

And yet and I know this seems to be a dirty word, the reality is that when men and boys were killed it was back page, blink and you'll miss it, in the media and in politics in the western world. When girls were kidnapped the same media and politics the western world lost it and it went front page with world leaders calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls. No hashtags for boys and men. It's hardly a monumental stretch to conclude that there is indeed a hierarchy of care in the western mind based along gender lines.

Consider every hostage situation in reality and drama; what's one of the first points of negotiation we see in all? Let the women and children go. Hostage takers are missing a trick here. They should let the men go. If you've a plane filled with just women and kids the authorities are going to think a little longer before storming in guns with blazing.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone and no "agenda" required. Human society has always had hierarchies of care along gender and age lines. Men have always been the "disposable" gender, women and children the more "valuable", though the women involved would have struggled to equate their lives with value. In wars it was the men who were most likely to be captured and killed by the victors, the women and young children captured as "resources", the very old of both were generally left alone. It's basic animal survival. A tribe that is composed of say 30 women and 5 men can survive, reverse that and it's on the path to extinction. Even our very DNA reflects this. More female lines have survived down to today than male.

It is what it is. To change that you'd have to fundamentally change human nature. The problem I have is that this is denied and reversed in the face of the obvious and that is on the back of an agenda. There was this infamous blooper along these lines:



Never mind that her second sentence makes a nonsense of the first... War affects men, women and kids, but to single out women when the vast majority of those prosecuting and dying in wars are men is beyond daft. It would be akin to saying "Men have always been the primary victims of rape. Men lose their wives, their mothers their daughters to rape". By the by in the bad old days before gender equality that was actually much of the attitude. A raped woman was seen as somehow sullied to her husband, father and family. That's still in play in some patriarchal societies today. And we know that's a horrific and stupid way to think.

Wibbs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its funny how many people on this thread have come to the conclusion that ‘men should band together to represent themselves’ , yet as small as it was, look up anything about mens rights activism, MRA is used as a slur, mens rights activists are universally labeled as women haters/ rape apologists etc.. , the feminist lot have NGO’s and the medias ear , allowing a collective of mens rights advocates any sympathy dollars or airtime would be a nightmare so many feminist groups have doubled down on trying to silence mra groups

The realities are and have been throughout history; men don't garner as much sympathy in society as women and children do. It doesn't matter what society you look at or when. It doesn't matter whether it's a patriarchal or matriarchal setup it's still the same. Men can rail against that all they want, but I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

You will have to excuse another stupid question?

What is the domestic violence industry.

The industry that supports victims of domestic abuse, my wording wasn't clear.

The support network for female victims of Domestic Abuse is over €22 million a year, the network supporting men receives about €700k a year in Ireland.

Men are as likely to be victims of domestic abuse as women....

This is similar all over the developed world, this is very deliberate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

This is what you could call systematic discrimination...the victims of which are male victims of domestic abuse....like I said, it is shameful.

anewme

I wont quote your whole post Wibbs, but do you honestly believe the world does not care about those little boys the same way as the girls.?

I posted a reason why I believe there was less coverage, more to do with it happening before, same as the jockey, not getting the same pushback as the horse trainer.

The world was rallying round the young lads in the cave in Thailand, I dont believe anyone even considered their gender fir one second.

Doctor Roast

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its funny how many people on this thread have come to the conclusion that ‘men should band together to represent themselves’ , yet as small as it was, look up anything about mens rights activism, MRA is used as a slur, mens rights activists are universally labeled as women haters/ rape apologists etc.. , the feminist lot have NGO’s and the medias ear , allowing a collective of mens rights advocates any sympathy dollars or airtime would be a nightmare so many feminist groups have doubled down on trying to silence mra groups

For years it's been cool to put men on blast, then when the shoe goes on the other foot there's shrieks and howls of misogyny, it's time to stop talking about women's rights and start talking about their wrongs..

""By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[20]"

Which is, essentially, why for decades there was little to no statistics about domestic abuse directed towards men, and even when, such research started to become more common, it was easy for those in the media or government circles to ignore it. Men aren't going to get much sympathy or belief when it comes to claims of being a victim with a woman as the aggressor. Social values/perception, in addition to many feminist propaganda pieces reinforce that, ensuring that even today when this research is becoming more commonly known, most will shrug it off as being less important than the research relating to women as victims.

joe40

Wibbs wrote: »

The realities are and have been throughout history; men don't garner as much sympathy in society as women and children do. It doesn't matter what society you look at or when. It doesn't matter whether it's a patriarchal or matriarchal setup it's still the same. Men can rail against that all they want, but I can't see it changing anytime soon.

But Men make up society, it is not imposed on us. We still have a large say in media, politics, military etc. Men are not powerless.
Up until the 20th century Women had very little say in how things were run.
The social norms that have developed in modern western societies have primarily been shaped by Men.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but say the example of rescuing women and children first from a sinking ship ( not sure how that worked in reality) Where did that come from? It was a totally patriarchal society that decided that ideal, not women.

You talk about men been disproportionately killed in war. That is absolutely true but how many military men or men in general would want women involved in frontline action in wars. It is only in recent years the idea would be even countenanced.

Eric Cartman

joe40 wrote: »

But Men make up society, it is not imposed on us. We still have a large say in media, politics, military etc. Men are not powerless.
Up until the 20th century Women had very little say in how things were run.
The social norms that have developed in modern western societies have primarily been shaped by Men.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but say the example of rescuing women and children first from a sinking ship ( not sure how that worked in reality) Where did that come from? It was a totally patriarchal society that decided that ideal, not women.

You talk about men been disproportionately killed in war. That is absolutely true but how many military men or men in general would want women involved in frontline action in wars. It is only in recent years the idea would be even countenanced.

It depends on how you take society now.

Politics - elected reps and leaders, perhaps - but the civil service, NGO’s, Charities and advisory groups are dominated by women.

Media - most opinion column inches are from women, most television programming is targeted towards women , most advertising is targeted to women , the advertising industry is dominated by women.

Women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending and 85% of credit card debt worldwide

Women have more power and influence in society than theyre often told they have, downplaying this fact is a keystone of most modern feminist thinking

Doctor Roast

joe40 wrote: »

But Men make up society, it is not imposed on us. We still have a large say in media, politics, military etc. Men are not powerless.
Up until the 20th century Women had very little say in how things were run.
The social norms that have developed in modern western societies have primarily been shaped by Men.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but say the example of rescuing women and children first from a sinking ship ( not sure how that worked in reality) Where did that come from? It was a totally patriarchal society that decided that ideal, not women.

You talk about men been disproportionately killed in war. That is absolutely true but how many military men or men in general would want women involved in frontline action in wars. It is only in recent years the idea would be even countenanced.

From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense, according a study by the carnegie
hero fund commission, male bystanders performed more than 90 per cent of spontaneous rescues, it's a predominantly male trait known as impulsive sensation seeking, a form of extreme caretaking.

hatrickpatrick

anewme wrote: »

No, I most certainly did not call you personally a bully.

You however, did call me a bully.

In that case, I misunderstood your point. I stand by mine, though - you are calling for people here to be silenced, and that is bullying. You want the website's owners to step in and shut people up because you don't like their ideology. How is that not bullying?

By you cant say anything, I mean you in general....not you personally, ie people. That's where the real difference is.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this?

I believe the discussion was interesting tonight and a lot of seeing the other side.

But where there is a core distrust and/or lack of respect, there will never be any understanding. So best off just disconnect and ignore.

Fair enough. But that is not censorship - that's you choosing not to participate because you don't like the debate. A choice, made of your own free will. Not coerced. Ergo not censorship.

There 's no value in calling people scum because of their gender, theres no value I using the N word, or hate against anyone.

I agree entirely. I never suggested otherwise. What I do suggest is that these are our opinions. And neither of us is more important than anyone else here, so why should either of us get to decide what opinions other people are allowed to discuss? Somebody else might have a different opinion, and if they do, I'd like to be able to debate with them openly and frankly without them getting silenced so that the debate cannot continue.

You are advocating a different type of censorship, where hate is allowed flourish.

That is literally the opposite of censorship.

Boards has censorship by way of its charter and there have already been posts deleted here that did not meet the qualitative standards. So does that not cause you an issue if you are vehemently against censorship?

Because you are advocating for a new kind of censorship which is based on ideology. Boards' moderation is currently only based on personal attacks and so on - all ideologies are welcome here at the moment (they weren't up until around three or four years ago, but ironically enough they were on /r/Ireland, which has entirely swapped places with Boards' as the ideologically policed Irish forum on the internet)

anewme

I do believe domestic violence amongst men is a real issue.

Going back to when I was a kid, the term used was battered wives. As in, Mary had to go to the battered wives place. There were no battered husbands, in fact if someone had come forward and claimed that, they would have been laughed at. As in, sure shes 5ft nothing, hes 6ft 3, what har, could she do.? Cue cartoon type analogies of hubby getting a belt of a ftying pan Benny Hill style. This was the view from men though, so if a man was getting abused, he must have felt very isolated un the 70s and 80's etc.

I would have full empathy towards anyone (straight, gay, bi, traveller) impacted by domestic violence. I do think there is more acknowledgement of that, but still a long way to go.

Eric Cartman

anewme wrote: »

I do believe domestic violence amongst men is a real issue.

Going back to when I was a kid, the term used was battered wives. As in, Mary had to go to the battered wives place. There were no battered husbands, in fact if someone had come forward and claimed that, they would have been laughed at. As in, sure shes 5ft nothing, hes 6ft 3, what har, could she do.? Cue cartoon type analogies of hubby getting a belt of a ftying pan Benny Hill style. This was the view from men though, so if a man was getting abused, he must have felt very isolated un the 70s and 80's etc.

I would have full empathy towards anyone (straight, gay, bi, traveller) impacted by domestic violence. I do think there is more acknowledgement of that, but still a long way to go.

As time goes on and more research and awareness is being placed on abuse featuring coercive control, manipulation , financial slavery etc.. its becoming obvious that women have just as much of a place in committing spousal abuse as men.

How many women do you know cant leave the house to see a female friend vs how many men do you know aren't allowed out to see the lads...

Silentcorner

anewme wrote: »

I do believe domestic violence amongst men is a real issue.

Going back to when I was a kid, the term used was battered wives. As in, Mary had to go to the battered wives place. There were no battered husbands, in fact if someone had come forward and claimed that, they would have been laughed at. As in, sure shes 5ft nothing, hes 6ft 3, what har, could she do.? Cue cartoon type analogies of hubby getting a belt of a ftying pan Benny Hill style. This was the view from men though, so if a man was getting abused, he must have felt very isolated un the 70s and 80's etc.

I would have full empathy towards anyone (straight, gay, bi, traveller) impacted by domestic violence. I do think there is more acknowledgement of that, but still a long way to go.

In some cases a battered husband would most likely die homeless on the streets, even dogs have shelters...I know one who did.

This is very deliberate. There is no excuse.

This is a direct result of the actions of women who would call themselves feminists.

anewme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because you are advocating for a new kind of censorship which is based on ideology. Boards' moderation is currently only based on personal attacks and so on - all ideologies are welcome here at the moment (they weren't up until around three or four years ago, but ironically enough they were on /r/Ireland, which has entirely swapped places with Boards' as the ideologically policed Irish forum on the internet)

This is the charter on this forum.

I'd say racism, misogyny and hate speech are very clearly against the charter.

Racism to me is hate speech. As is traveller bashing or bashing others.

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute..

We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. If we tell you to refrain from behaviour that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from a productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

We reserve the right to delete any post for any or no reason whatsoever.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

I do believe domestic violence amongst men is a real issue.

Going back to when I was a kid, the term used was battered wives. As in, Mary had to go to the battered wives place. There were no battered husbands, in fact if someone had come forward and claimed that, they would have been laughed at. As in, sure shes 5ft nothing, hes 6ft 3, what har, could she do.? Cue cartoon type analogies of hubby getting a belt of a ftying pan Benny Hill style. This was the view from men though, so if a man was getting abused, he must have felt very isolated un the 70s and 80's etc.

I would have full empathy towards anyone (straight, gay, bi, traveller) impacted by domestic violence. I do think there is more acknowledgement of that, but still a long way to go.

you talk about this as if its in the past. its 2021 and this is still happening to men all over this country. its a disgrace.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

But Men make up society, it is not imposed on us. We still have a large say in media, politics, military etc. Men are not powerless.
Up until the 20th century Women had very little say in how things were run.
The social norms that have developed in modern western societies have primarily been shaped by Men.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but say the example of rescuing women and children first from a sinking ship ( not sure how that worked in reality) Where did that come from? It was a totally patriarchal society that decided that ideal, not women.

Men? So.. you think the ultra wealthy men in the US, or the lords in the UK, represented the viewpoints and interests of the average punter in the street?

"Men" don't shape society, no more than "Women" do. Not directly, and not in any kind of way suggesting equality across all classes, income groups, educational backgrounds, genders, etc whatever metric you want to use...

For a significant period in time, "men" were ruled, just as much as women, by a elitist group of people who have little consideration for others.

You talk about men been disproportionately killed in war. That is absolutely true but how many military men or men in general would want women involved in frontline action in wars. It is only in recent years the idea would be even countenanced.

Because few women can establish the physical strength that would have been needed as part of a frontline combat soldier. Would you trust someone who would be unable to hoist their fellow wounded soldier and carry them miles to the aid station? Or carry all the equipment needed for traditonal warfare? (which is mitigated somewhat due to new materials, and a greater focus on technology). And on top of that, we're talking about professional soldiers fighting other professionals, so would you trust most women to be capable of standing toe-to-toe with a 6ft male marine? I'd be iffy on that score, and I've known some rather strong women in my time.

And that's without touching the desire not to see dead women, or women who have been raped as pows.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you talk about this as if its in the past. its 2021 and this is still happening to men all over this country. its a disgrace.

I'm not talking as if its the past.im saying how it would have been viewed when I was growing up.

I dont believe it's gone at all. I'd say it's got worse.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

This is the charter on this forum.

I'd say racism, misogyny and hate speech are very clearly against the charter.

Racism to me is hate speech. As is traveller bashing or bashing others.

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute..

We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. If we tell you to refrain from behaviour that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from a productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

We reserve the right to delete any post for any or no reason whatsoever.

a lot of what vocal femanists say would fall into those guidlines.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

a lot of what vocal femanists say would fall into those guidlines.

The difference is that feminists would know what you're thinking (both conscious and subconscious).. being able to interpret what you wanted to say, as opposed to what you did write. reading between the lines is rather common when it comes to feminist driven censorship of others.

Whereas boards will deal with what you've written.

anewme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As time goes on and more research and awareness is being placed on abuse featuring coercive control, manipulation , financial slavery etc.. its becoming obvious that women have just as much of a place in committing spousal abuse as men.

How many women do you know cant leave the house to see a female friend vs how many men do you know aren't allowed out to see the lads...

My answer here would be very skewed due to personal circumstances.

As of today I'd only be aware of couple of controlling people in relationships. No actual violence, one man and one woman.

anewme

the_pen_turner wrote: »

a lot of what vocal femanists say would fall into those guidlines.

Are you talking about here or in reality?

...Ghost...

Tell me how wrote: »

This sounds like an intro to a Tucker Carlson monologue, but let's explore it.

Can you explain what it is about feminism in Ireland today is making people sick, limiting our freedom and taking lives.

Or maybe I extracted the incorrect reference from your analogy, what is it about feminism in Ireland in 2021 which is impacting society negatively in such a way it is appropriate to compare it to a pandemic. Please give specific examples, which should not be a problem, if it is as bad as you suggest.

Sure. To put it bluntly; Lies and hate affect our mental health negatively. Poor mental health leads to stress which leads to sickness and can lead to suicidal ideations and death.

Modern feminism is lies and hate. It is about putting one gender above the other and it is a politically driven juggernaut that threatens to run over anyone who questions it. It has embedded itself into organisations claiming to fight for equality, but scratch beneath the surface and you see clear as day that the organisation is there only to promote women and tar men.

With a name like the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, you could reasonably expect the aim of the organistaion is to promote equality and protect human rights, right? Nope...it's all about putting women forward and framing mysoginistic comments as criminally punishable hate speech....but no mention of misandric speech.....that's ok apparently.

anewme wrote: »

But what the fck is it?

Feminism (poorly named) was about getting women on a more equal footing with men. It targeted voting rights, employment rights and property ownership rights among other very important things. It succeeded and that is really great, because equality is important enough to fight for.

Modern feminism is all about putting women ahead of men. Women already had the upper hand when it came to survival. For example, they were never drafted into the army and sent off to fight wars. They were always first to be taken out of harms way and they are not the gender chosen to carry out dangerous work.

Modern feminism aims to keep those unfair survival advantages and put women into powerful and sought after positions in politics and employment regardless of the fact there may be 100 more suitable men ahead of them....and this is where gender quotas come in. Funny there is no drive for gender quotas for Janitors, Sanitary disposal, or any of the other less attractive jobs men have to shoulder for society.

Where is it?

Everywhere in the west at least. It's in our politics, work places and it's even in our schools. Yesterday I walked by the local primary on the way to the shops. The school kids were lined up outside to go inside and I notices all the girls were first inline to go into class. That may seem unimportant, but that's a policy set by the school whether official or not. If they do this before the kids enter the school, then it's not a far stretch to suggest that boys are treated worse than girls in the school.

Howvdoes it impact our day to day life?

That would be individual, but in general, it gives women an advantage in many areas which means men have a disadvantage in those areas. Take the basic defense forces fitness test for example. A woman can cross the finish line after a man and pass the fitness test, but the man ahead of her may not have passed the test.

Someone referred to a sandwich and now you are referencing Corona virus.

But it’s all analogies.

Analogies are an effective way to get a message across. Sometimes it's a piece of cake.

Real life examples would be great.

I'll give you a real life example I experienced. I had returned to college for a career change. The course I chose was dominated by men and has been traditionally. Around 10% were women. The women were offered mentors, women only classes and cash reward incentives of which the men received none. The women received inflated grades and praise for work submitted. I know this because I was a representative at a meeting where a senior lecturer brought the issue up. The defense was that the university had to be seen to be progressive and couldn't have the women failing in what is a male dominated sector. The lecturer was brilliant and quipped a reply to state that the males attending female dominated roles had received no such favour.

Another example. A large multi-national who I will not name made two scholarships available to students in the same course. One scholarship was only for female applicants. Two females were chosen for the scholarships despite far more suitable and deserving males having applied in greater numbers than the females.

anewme

Silentcorner wrote: »

In some cases a battered husband would most likely die homeless on the streets, even dogs have shelters...I know one who did.

This is very deliberate. There is no excuse.

This is a direct result of the actions of women who would call themselves feminists.

And I know kids taken from their beds to walk the streets in the small hours when the doors were kicked in.

There are examples both sides. One should not trump the other.

the_pen_turner

anewme wrote: »

Are you talking about here or in reality?

very rarely here but the internet /media in general

Wibbs

anewme wrote: »

I wont quote your whole post Wibbs, but do you honestly believe the world does not care about those little boys the same way as the girls.?

I posted a reason why I believe there was less coverage, more to do with it happening before, same as the jockey, not getting the same pushback as the horse trainer.

It had indeed happened before. They had rounded up and killed the men and boys and sent the girls home to be good little Muslim girls away from notions like education. Tiny level of reporting. Then they decided to go back and kill more of the men and boys and kidnap the girls because they weren't staying at home. The dead boys and men? A sideline in the reporting. The kidnapped girls, campaigns and hashtags everywhere.

The world was rallying round the young lads in the cave in Thailand, I dont believe anyone even considered their gender fir one second.

Like I said there is a hierarchy of caring. In descending order; Men, women, children. They were young boys so fit the last category. Men can fit higher into the care category when they're doing certain "manly" things, so miners trapped underground and the like.

joe40 wrote: »

But Men make up society, it is not imposed on us. We still have a large say in media, politics, military etc. Men are not powerless.
Up until the 20th century Women had very little say in how things were run.
The social norms that have developed in modern western societies have primarily been shaped by Men.

This is an all too common problem with this debate. Up until the 20th century the common man and woman had very little say in how things were run. As I pointed out earlier the vote for the common woman in western societies with very few exceptions came along at the same time or soon after the vote for the common man and before that there were women who had the vote before the common man. The wealthy, the landowning women. There is this notion around that the average man had the vote and rights for centuries and only latterly did women get any of that. For the vast majority of societies throughout history those at the top had the power(and a fair number were women), while the rest had little or no power. If you look at the Roman empire, a very patriarchal society on the surface and it was for most of the common people, but on the other hand you had women landowners and business owners and public figures from the elites. One of the richest people in Pompeii was a woman.

In short the gender disparity was as much a class disparity in many ways. When Lady Chatterley's Lover was causing scandal in British society it was just as much about the fact she a member of the elite was ridin the lowly gardener as the about the ridin itself.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but say the example of rescuing women and children first from a sinking ship ( not sure how that worked in reality) Where did that come from? It was a totally patriarchal society that decided that ideal, not women.

As I said earlier:

The realities are and have been throughout history; men don't garner as much sympathy in society as women and children do. It doesn't matter what society you look at or when. It doesn't matter whether it's a patriarchal or matriarchal setup it's still the same.

You talk about men been disproportionately killed in war. That is absolutely true but how many military men or men in general would want women involved in frontline action in wars. It is only in recent years the idea would be even countenanced.

Basic biological realities and technology. War is prosecuted by young strong fit men physically able for killing even down to hand to hand if needs be. Most men are too young, or old or physically weak to be able to do it, a platoon of women would be cut to ribbons. Of course there are some very strong women who could do it, but they're in a tiny minority and even then in the US military they've had to dial back some of the requirements to allow women into combat type roles.

Technology levels the paying field. So women pilots can work, pushing a button in a portacabin in Nevada while controlling a drone in Syria could be done by anyone, so you can have more women in war now than in the past.

anewme

Doctor Roast wrote: »

it's time to stop talking about women's rights and start talking about their wrongs..

I'd say that outlook is part of the reason why mens rights groups dont get traction. It's too divisive.

Thst type of pitch would alienate a lot of people.

Doctor Roast

anewme wrote: »

I'd say that outlook is part of the reason why mens rights groups dont get traction. It's too divisive.

Thst type of pitch would alienate a lot of people.

I have a feeling that comment cut through you...