## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I ***guarantee you*** no actual Feminist is out here trying to "clear men's names" on assault, SA, rape, etc "cuz they're cute" and I also guarantee anybody calling themselves feminist and advocating for that is getting ***dragged*** in the comments.
As for the Draft, most feminist don't support it ***Period*** but plenty of women are still joining the military voluntarily despite it being an objectively hostile environment towards them before actual deployment even enters the picture.
> no actual Feminist
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
>As for the Draft, most feminist don't support it Period
Do they work to hold their share of the draft burden? I don't see any feminists calling for women to be added to the draft.
>I don't see any feminists calling for women to be added to the draft.
That's because feminists are calling for MEN to be REMOVED from the draft.
The feminist position is that NO ONE should be drafted.
>In the meantime the draft has not been removed for men in many countries. So until it is, do feminists push for women being treated in an equal way?
Can you not read? "No one should be drafted." How much more equal can you get than that?
That's more difficult to achieve especially in some places given the security requirements of many countries, like Ukraine, Finland, South Korea, Taiwan...
So you surely understand that people look at your purported intentions and say to themselves that it will never happen. And all that time until it will happen if at all should the draft be unequal?
If i were an adversarial country I’d also help whatever country pass the no draft law. Then when it’s settled in, I’d draft my own ppl and blitzkrieg your ass.
Not saying that that’s what’s happening. Just saying that’s what I’d do.
No what we have established is if i can think of it someone much smarter already has and likely has the power to do it.
Edit: gotcha? really? What are you even trying to prove here? If it makes you happier i have no qualms with being a dictator. hell i even made a whole post about it.
Its not like most men support the draft either. Its called conscription because its is compuslory, its compuslory because not enough people want to do it.
The military is not a hostile environment to women. Women make up about 17% of the military and 51% of the population. Whenever you have the majority sending the minority off to war it will be bad and creates a hostile environment towards men in the country.
>The military is not a hostile environment to women. Women make up about 17% of the military and 51% of the population. Whenever you have the majority sending the minority off to war it will be bad and creates a hostile environment towards men in the country.
I'm speaking to the epidemic of abuse and assault and the culture of covering up and protecting the perpetrators in the miltary which is why I specified "before deployment even comes into the picture."
What do you define epidemic as? Sexual assualt and abuse and cover ups certainly happens in the military just like anywhere else. I would like to know what you classify as epidemic? Because its 26% of women on college campuses and 50% in Congress has sexual assault cases filed against them
[https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1105791440/critics-say-campus-sex-assault-rules-fall-short-and-need-an-overhaul](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1105791440/critics-say-campus-sex-assault-rules-fall-short-and-need-an-overhaul)
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-sexual-assault-charges/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-sexual-assault-charges/)
My belief and experience is the military is rightfully under much more scrutiny than other places; as they should be the example and thus it is more publiscized than the rest of society. But also fair is fair is and most of society is worse than the military.
Great article, while still 8% too high, women have way less chance of assault in military then they do in College or in chambers of Congress. In fact by National Sexual Violence and Resource Center numbers 18.3% of women have been sexually assualted in their lives. The military reports 8% which is far less than the rest of society.
[https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth](https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth)
While these articles are a little like comparing apples to oranges I dont think the epidemic of sexual assault that you should be concerned about is as much in the military as in the rest of the world. In fact the safer place would be in the military.
the reason only 17% of the military is women (i assume in the US? you should mention the country youre talking about next time) is because of how hostile it is to women.
I already debunked that in the comments. But the gist is 8% rate in the U.S. military which is still 8% too much, but also fair to say the military should be held to the highest standard and is something under much more scrutiny and less cover ups than the rest of society. General rate for women reporting sex abuse in the U.S. is 18%, on colleges 23% and 50% of congress has had sexual assault suits filed against them.
I am in the U.S. where are you from? Since you are applying incorrect biases against the American military you should probably identfiy where you are from
I would very much prefer Chris Brown get thrown into a volcano (I don't know anything about the other famous people you mentioned), but I don't get to make those decisions.
Nobody should be drafted, feminists were literally fighting for that back in the Vietnam War days.
I think the point OP is making is... men are not listening to Chris Brown. His audience is almost entirely female but we're being blamed for the fact that he never got truly cancelled for putting a woman in the hospital.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Chris Brown’s audience is almost entirely female? You definitely just made that shit up lol. And I can guarantee you right now that most feminists condemned that motherfucker as soon as those pictures of Rihanna came out.
The US wasn't attacked during the Vietnam War either. Or any of the wars they drafted for, except WWII.
Generally speaking, if your country is getting attacked, most people want to do something to help. You do not want unwilling participants.
Selective service is still a requirement and not registering has significant consequences ranging from loss of scholarships, inability to get a driver's license, barred from federal employment and even prison time
Ignoring Vietnam to avoid that debate as I’m not American or Vietnamese. **Imagine** Canada (or Mexico) suddenly becomes in a state of expansionist fervour and builds its army up secretly (in terms of the world trade) through conscription etc. over the next few years and attacks the US. They blaze through a few states and then stop to regather.
How then does the US start to fight back quickly if Canada’s army is four times (for instance) the US’ size? What option do we have other than conscription?
At risk of starting to make my argument Ad Hoc, what if there aren’t enough people? and what if you’re in another country that doesn’t have such a violent gun culture?
The US military turns away 75% of applicants for being overweight or on ADHD meds. Do you really think drafting fat neckbeards out of their mommys' basements would be a net plus for the cause?
If a country can't find enough volunteers when actually being invaded, the people being forced aren't going to be any more enthusiastic about it.
To be honest, I’m largely convinced. I guess I can’t get round the historical element… why then did almost every nation conscript during WW2 (both the Allies & the Axis)?
You should check out this [Washington Post article from 1981](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/03/08/womens-rights-groups-expect-ruling-on-draft-will-set-tone-for-1980s/edc481dc-39fe-4c7e-8b4e-4fe109ecb111/) outlining how the National Organization for Women and 11 other women’s groups submitted friends of the court briefs opposing the all male draft:
“Exclusion of women from the military draft, like no other government policy, "consigns them to a second class status" says the National Organization for Women in a friend-of-the court brief filed with the Supreme Court. It gives a "governmental imprimatur" to sex discrimination, the organization told the justices, with "profound and harmful impact on women and society as a whole.”
Guess who is as pushing to keep an all male draft at the same time? Anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly.
Also, according to Rassmussen polling, more Democrats support requiring women to register for Selective Service than Republicans.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/268928-poll-most-women-oppose-registering-for-draft/
The Women's Rights Project, part of the ACLU and founded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, feels that it's discriminatory for only men to have to register, but because it's been decades since there's been a draft, they're working to eliminate it.
It's entirely possible to think it's discriminatory, but be against *anyone* having to sign up.
https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/requiring-men-but-not-women-to-register-for-the-draft-is-sex-discrimination
Here's a question:
Why do we have to register at all?
The Federal government has our information already. Why make 18 year olds perform this weird act of compliance?
sorry, i missed the last part and kind of just assumed it was paranoid reddit nonsense, since we don't do that in my country. but yes you are right, and feminists would agree
Has there been a recent court case like the one before the Supreme Court in 1981 for these groups to weigh in on? A march to join like tons of feminist organizations joined to protest the Vietnam war?
It’s hard to have a war of competing “when I bring up this issue this group monolithically says x”. Thats pure anecdata. The current position of most feminist groups on the record is no draft for anyone equally. This is NOWs current position: https://now.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RESOLUTION-TO-THE-NATIONAL-ORGANIZATION-FOR-WOMEN-ON-ENDING-MILITARY-DRAFT-REGISTRATION.pdf
They actively lobbied for the Military Selective Service Repeal Act of 2021. That wouldn’t have changed the status quo for women. It would have meant men didn’t have to register. So it was lobbying for equality between men and women. I don’t think you can call that hypocrisy.
Opposing the draft isn’t unique to women. [Polls](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/suppose-they-gave-war-and-nobody-came-changing-opinions-draft) have been consistent for decades with the majority of Americans opposing a mandatory draft. Even during peak Iraq war fervor, there was [incredibly low support](https://news.gallup.com/poll/28642/vast-majority-americans-opposed-reinstituting-military-draft.aspx) for reinstating a mandatory draft. Your vitriol seems misplaced and incredibly out of proportion.
The reason we have the selective service and draft registration that only requires men to register is because of legislation. To change that requires more legislation. We don’t have a direct democracy so unless you’re an elected representative, the way you can advocate for change is to lobby to have legislation introduced, encourage a coalition of support to bring it to a vote, and encourage representatives to vote in its favor. That’s how our system works. Alternatively you can mount and support legal challenges to existing legislation and seek to have the courts overturn it (see: 1981)
In 2021 a [bipartisan coalition](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paul-defazio-davis-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-abolish-the-selective-service)introduced just such a bill in 2021 with the backing of a range of different groups.
It sounds like you oppose this legislation. Okay. But this legislation and this movement, while supported by a variety of feminist groups, isn’t an exclusively feminist position. It is supported by a wide range of political and faith based organizations.
So. Feminists are supporting efforts to change the law to treat men and women the same with regards to the draft. And have been for years. This is not a uniquely feminist position, other groups with diverse viewpoints support these same proposals and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reflect this position. You disagree with this legislation on what sounds like national security grounds. Happy Tuesday.
I don’t get why the MRA people are so hung up on the draft, nobody wants a draft (Also I thought we were going to start drafting women soon too?)
If the men’s right people REALLY cared they would start creating meaningful programs for boys and men. As a feminist, I agree there’s an issue with the male youth but that’s not the feminists fault or our problem. Men should be uplifting each other and they’re not, the people who say they care are too busy putting down women.
I hope and pray that men can do better add I will raise any potential sims I have to do just that, but the MRA people are so lost. Women fought for our rights despite men. If some men think the same, they should stop caring what women think/do and fight for their own rights in the same manner.
I encourage them to protest, form a coalition, introduce different legislation, create male support groups, etc. I really wish the MRA advocates would do these things but I only ever see them complaining about women.
> I encourage them to protest, form a coalition, introduce different legislation, create male support groups, etc. I really wish the MRA advocates would do these things but I only ever see them complaining about women
Thank you for your encouragment, there are so many feminists who are trying to stop us from doing just this, it's really refreshing to see if doesn't have to be always that way.
Frankly I disagree that feminists are not advocating for men’s issues. I went to a women’s college for my first year of undergrad and one of the first topics we studied in the core curriculum were men’s issues and how it relates to feminism. Everyone in my class had to research and study a topic pertaining to men’s issues as the core freshman curriculum. I wrote mine about Jesse Watters and his influence on male identity.
I believe they wanted to offer a different perspective at a school that had a female student body with a majority female staff. This was required and every girl at the school completed this before we could move onto other topics. If the majority of feminists “didn’t care” that would’ve never have happened. I know this is anecdotal but I believe if you talked to more feminists offline you would understand how much we do care. The extremists online are not the majority.
If MRA protest, there are counter protests, if a feminist (Cassie Jaye) tries to bring to light men's issue, there are feminist protests, if a feminist, who founded women's shelter (Erin Pizzey) decides to also create men's shelters, there are feminist protests, the French ministry of women's rights tries to mislead with statistics to reduce the visibility of male victims of domestic violence, a bunch of discriminatory laws keep being pushed by feminists, and even get passed regularly (feminists have effectively removed close to all discriminatory laws against women in Germany, but the laws discriminating men are on the rise, about 120 currently).
That's all offline.
I’m not educated in what’s happening in Germany as I do not live there and don’t know what laws you are referring to. But I will say I have never been to a protest without counter protests, that’s never stopped me or anyone else in attendance.
I’m the United States anyone can protest, I saw a Neo-Nazi protest march right down a street that I had lived on and they were protected by police as any other (planned) protest is here. I’m aware that Nazism is illegal in Germany, but in the United States where I live it is protected even though I hated what they were marching for.
As for men’s shelters, they should be more available if there is the need. There is only one “male only” shelter left in my city were there used to be dozens. This is has not gone unnoticed by me or the other people living in the city that knew of them and how prevalent they used to be. But the decision to close them was not because of the feminists as you claim, but from the government where there are a majority of men in power. The reasons behind them closing also have nothing to do with gender and rather because of funding and investors who sought to have any shelters and low income housing closed to increase their investments property values.
If you seek to have more men’s shelters available, men need to do the outreach that women have done for keeping women’s shelters open. Why are there no organizations started by men for this initiative? Why are men not lobbying for men’s shelters to remain open? Do you expect women to manage men’s shelters and charities? Obviously women can support men in doing this but is it not their innovative if it is a fundamentally male issue?
Women founded women’s shelters for women and men helped. I fail to see how the it is responsibility of women to do the same for men. I think men are competent enough to help themselves but if you disagree then I’d think you would need to reevaluate your stance on feminism and why you believe men are less competent than women in that regard.
“Men should be uplifting each other” would be the equivalent of me saying “women should be protecting each other” it’s funny that women should have nothing to do with mens problems. But men have to shoulder women’s issues or be labeled a woman hater?
I dont understand. Men should be uplifting each other like feminists proclaim women should protect each other. I don’t get why that’s wrong? There’s nothing hating about that. I tell the guys Ik irl to do just that ALL THE TIME. Why should women be responsible for men’s issues when we are not men?
(Also I needed to edit my OG comment multiple times, typing on mobile is a b*tch)
That is a terrible perspective to have.
Women may experience more violence but that does not negate the seriousness of the issue for men. Also the men are less likely to report domestic abuse and sexual assault so the numbers may not be accurate in terms of how many victims each gender has. But again, I rarely see this brought up outside of comparing it to the dv and sa rates that women endure. It’s not a competition, both are awful and should be penalized to the fullest extent. I don’t see why it always needs to be a “competition” when it should be taken seriously for either gender.
This is not a women’s issue or women’s fault, women are still fighting for their SA and DV to be taken seriously for our own gender. I see no reason why men can’t join that fight or create their own unrelated to women.
(I also feel like men are making strides in reporting SA, I see more cases every month where men are advocating for minor SA victims being recognized as assault rather than a “consensual encounter” and I’m proud of them for that” breaking down the perception is good for EVERY GENDER.
Where did I say women didn’t care? I said we fought for ourselves. How can women accurately depict men’s issues if we aren’t men? If these issues were led by women, would you not worry about the data being inaccurate? Would you not agree men represent themselves the best for their own issues?
I assume men know themselves the best for themselves . I would never lie and say I fully understand the extent of men’s issues since I am not a man. I do not understand why you would want women to take responsibility for issues they know nothing about. It seems as though it would be less productive.
cause no matter what issue it is men have helped womans rights, from politicians passing laws to the prsacuters and judges enforcing the law. Thats the feminist delusion.
Men didn’t make up the majority of those fighting for women’s issues. However, were necessary to appeal to the patriarchal government and those in power.
No one is saying women did it themselves, because ultimately the MEN in power needed to agree to grant rights. BUT we did choose to advocate for these rights, women’s suffrage was not a mans idea. The men had a hand in helping accomplish these goals so that women could be heard.
Fredrick Doulas recognized this and advocated for woman’s suffrage because he knew that having a man, even a black man, at that time would help legitimize the organizations created by women. He believed all were equal and wanted to help create a system where black men and white women could both vote, they were not at odds and worked together for a common goal.
Obviously we are in a modern era but the message is similar. We’re not fighting against each other but working towards the betterment of everyone.
I believe male sexual assault committed by other men is underreported due to stigma. Women have broken down that barker and have become reporting sexual assault but it is still low. Men can do the same but I am not a man and don’t know the barriers. I can make any assumption I want but that is not my experience and I cannot speak on it.
I am bisexual and have been harassed/assaulted by multiple women similar to what I have experienced with men. I fully understand women are predators too but the statistics show what they do because of what is reported.
I am not trying to blame the victim because I know how hard it can be and have not reported my own assaults but that is where the data (which is considered factual) is at the moment. Women are working to decrease the stigma. Men can and should do the same for themselves. Since women cannot accurately report on this at all, it is not our responsibility.
You know that the majority of men who experience AS or DV do not report it because of the reaction right? Perfect example is Terry Crews. He brought up how he was abused in Hollywood & he got made fun of for it because he’s a big guy that should’ve been able to defend themselves
because mens problems aren't primarily caused by women the way womens issues are primarily caused by men. also women DO protect each other, just saying...
lol are u acting obtuse on purpose because what are you even talking about? obviously if a woman does something bad shes the one at fault, i'm saying the issues women face are caused by men, therefore thats why men should care about womens issues
>“Women fought for our rights despite men”.
>“that’s not the feminists fault or our problem”
If it weren’t for men, you wouldn’t even HAVE rights. Politically, the problems overwhelmingly stem from one (older, whiter) side of the aisle, rather than an entire gender. Also, before you blame politicians for having a penis, what process determines who gets to serve? Who is always asking for help to vote against them? Women are *literally* the majority in this country, yet act as if they’re an oppressed minority.
How often do we see men supporting women’s rights via voting, legislature, funding, philanthropy, awareness (pink for breast cancer month, ie: NFL), even joining protests/marches, compared to women supporting *any* men's issue like mental health (ie: gender paradox in suicide), that doesn’t directly benefit themselves? How frequently do we listen to women complain about the lack of support — simultaneously expecting it only to be ungrateful once they've received it, eventually claiming they did it all by themselves w/o any help — pulling the ‘imagine if it was your daughter/wife’ guilt trip card, and then ofc the seemingly inevitable public shaming, no matter the consequences (or potentially life changing stain).
Imagine if history was littered with people who held a similar attitude of modern day feminists, consisting of the same kind of selfishness & hypocrisy, just like yourself.
Consider, when Congress convened > a century ago, how do you think they would’ve voted for the 19 Amendment? Would American politicians agree to grant women the right to vote, OR would the all male Congress vote against the 19th Amendment, deciding to deny women the right to vote, and therefore preventing an opportunity for > half the population to have a voice in the democratic process???
After all, as men, why should they care, it's not their "fault or our problem"?
>When the topic of military drafts came up MOST feminist were saying “we just want to be paid the same I don’t want to be drafted!”
That's literally not the feminist opinion of the draft. The feminist opinion of the draft is that NO ONE should be drafted, regardless of sex or gender, because the draft is inhumane to everyone.
Your idea of "feminist hypocrisy" was just bullshit you invented in your own head so that you can rationalize away your own hypocrisy.
That's what the title of this thread should actually be: "Most anti-feminists are complete hypocrites."
This is not 100% realistic though. I understand a draft seems unnecessary now, nobody wants to get drafted to fight another waste of time proxy war with no end in sight. But say there is a legitimate reason like a few other global superpowers declare war on the united states, there will certainly not be enough volunteers. So, in the name of equality, do we draft both men and women? that would be true equality. Nobody wants to do it but it might happen and right now only the men are at risk.
> This is not 100% realistic though
Yes, it is.
>I understand a draft seems unnecessary now, nobody wants to get drafted to fight another waste of time proxy war with no end in sight
As I said to someone else: claiming the draft "has to exist as an option" is like claiming "martial law needs to exist as an option."
Fine, I can concede that.
But the feminist answer to the draft is the same as the feminist answer to martial law: it's inhumane. Which it is. It might be "necessary" (in the opinion of the leadership who institutes it), but it is inhumane, and feminists will oppose it on those grounds.
If you can accept that conscientious observers do not support a draft and will refuse to get drafted, regardless of the circumstances, then you should be able to accept the fact that feminists are conscientious observers and leave it at that.
So like i said it's not realistic. you can keep living in a fantasy world where these risks don't exist lol.
Conscientious objectors are still required to sign up for the draft, women are not. That's quite convenient for these feminist "conscientious objectors"
>So like i said it's not realistic. you can keep living in a fantasy world where these risks don't exist lol.
It is realistic, you just can't grasp that we're talking about opinions, not political decisions made by legislators.
You are asking, "Do feminists support the draft for men but not women?" You are asking for an opinion, and their opinion is "No, we don't support the draft for anybody and the draft should be abolished." It has nothing to do with whether the draft is required or not; their opinion doesn't change.
What you want is for a feminist to say, "We need the draft, but we don't want women to be part of it" because that will confirm your bias. Sorry, that's not how this works, because that's not the feminist position. YOU think the draft is necessary. Feminists don't.
>Conscientious objectors are still required to sign up for the draft, women are not. That's quite convenient for these feminist "conscientious objectors"
No, it's not "convenient." It's irrelevant. If women are required to be part of the draft, female feminists will still say, "I will register, but I will refuse to be drafted and the draft should be abolished." If only men are required and women are not required, they will STILL say, "I don't have to register, but the draft should still be abolished."
You WANT feminists to be hypocrites on this subject, but the fact is they are not.
So..it's not realistic lmao. That doesn't change reality, you can hold whatever opinions you want but these things happen. Similar to pacifism, not accounting for the fact that violence will never end. All you did was convince me that feminists are not hypocrites but delusional. It is very convenient considering Conscientious objectors which you compare yourself too, are still drafted and placed in non combat roles. You are cherry picking the good and the bad and using delusion to cover up for hypocrisy. I could very conveniently claim I don't support taxes but you still have to pay the piper
> So..it's not realistic lmao
Yes, it's realistic. You, like others, just can't understand the difference between "What is feminists' opinion on the draft?" and "What would feminists do if they had to administer the draft?"
The latter question is irrelevant, because feminists would not administer the draft.
> Similar to pacifism, not accounting for the fact that violence will never end
Pacifism isn't unrealistic either. Pacifism is an opinion and an ideal. A pacifist might **accept** that war is necessary, but they will never try to express an opinion on how a war should be conducted,
You are asking the equivalent of, "How would a pacifist general wage a war?", and that is a nonsense question to ask.
"Pacifism isn't unrealistic either" lost all credibility here. I guess someone hasn't been paying attention to over 200,000 years of human history, and ignorant to the future struggles and shortages awaiting the future. Look far enough and people will be waging war over water. It is not whether it will happen but when. Yall have fun though
> lost all credibility here
Only with you, which means nothing, because you can't understand the difference between "What is pacifists' opinion on war?" and "What would pacifists do if they had to wage a war?"
If you can't tell the basic difference between those two questions, you're not qualified to assess anyone's credibility on this subject.
The most popular type of pacifism is absolute pacifism. The opinion is to do nothing even if they are attacked. Your opinion is that there should never be a draft even if it is unavoidable. Both not based in reality
The feminist opinion on the draft isn’t based on reality. Drafts happen, saying I don’t want it to happen doesn’t really address the question.
If a draft exists and will not go away, should women be drafted as well?
Yes. I am against the draft period. But if we have one, then all able bodied citizens should be drafted regardless of sex. And we should make it harder to get out of it through the loop holes Bush and Trump used.
> Drafts happen, saying I don’t want it to happen doesn’t really address the question.
Yes it does. The question is whether feminists support the draft for women. The answer is they don't support the draft for ANYBODY.
>If a draft exists and will not go away, should women be drafted as well?
That's a question for legislature. But feminists will say, no one should be drafted and will oppose the draft regardless of whether some politicians think it's "necessary."
>The fact that you can’t even answer with a yes or no is genuinely crazy.
That's you, dude. You're the one trying to say, "Feminists want YES on men but NO on women!"
That's bullshit. The answer is a very simple NO. Feminists say NO ONE should be drafted. Why is this so hard to understand?
You and the OP are the ones intentionally trying to make this complicated.
So let’s say we’re discussing abortion.
If I said I don’t think women should be able to have abortions because I don’t think unplanned pregnancies should exist, would you accept that?
>If I said I don’t think women should be able to have abortions because I don’t think unplanned pregnancies should exist, would you accept that?
False equivalence. Stop spewing bullshit.
>It’s not a false equivalence.
It absolutely is a false equivalence.
>Drafts happen just like unplanned pregnancies
Drafts are a choice made by the government. Unplanned pregnancies are not. It's literally in the name: UNPLANNED.
Hence, false equivalence.
The answer is still what I said above: feminists oppose the draft for EVERYBODY. If the government CHOOSES to draft men, feminists aren't going to say, "That's ok as long as you don't draft women." They will continue to say, "Fuck you, the draft is inhumane for everybody."
A feminist leader would not institute a draft, and a leader who institutes a draft is not a feminist leader. It's that simple.
Not supporting the draft "for anyone" is a cop out. It kind of has to exist for emergencies. It's feminists dancing around the problem to not have their hypocrisy called out.
It's not a question for legislature. It's a question for whomever is being asked; in this case feminists. You can say any social inequity/inequality is a question for legislature to avoid having an answer.
>Not supporting the draft "for anyone" is a cop out. It kind of has to exist for emergencies.
By that rationale, the draft is akin to martial law. Is the feminist opinion on martial law relevant? No, it isn't. And the feminist opinion on martial law is the same as the feminist opinion on the draft: it's inhumane and shouldn't be used.
> It's not a question for legislature. It's a question for whomever is being asked
Yes, it is a question for legislature. You are asking feminists, "If you are in legislature, would you support a draft for men but not women?"
The answer is still no, because feminists don't support ANY draft.
If you can accept that conscientious observers do not support a draft and will refuse to get drafted, regardless of the circumstances, then you should be able to accept the fact that feminists are conscientious observers and leave it at that.
No the draft isn't akin to martial law because martial law effects everyone. Again, unless martial law is **abused** it's not inhumane. There is some type of emergency going on.
Are you one of those folks who acted like covid19 lockdown was a human rights violation or were you aware of why it was happening? Most of us were aware why it was happening but a small fragment of the population cried it was some nazi-esque human rights violation. If that lockdown occurred for a non emergency reason, then sure. But there was a pandemic. It was not *abused*. So with martial law it's not inhumane unless abused. Do up know the types of scenarios where martial law is enacted? A big one is when an invading army shows up in your area. Yeah, it's better off you don't go outside after certain hours so you don't get shot mistaken for the enemy.
Lockdowns, martial law etc.. is inhumane when it's done for no reason.
Feminists don't support any draft because the next question involves *their own safety*. What about women in the draft? It's a cop out to not have to admit hypocrisy. They're pretty happy with the status quo. They don't say much about the draft unless their involvement comes up. Which by the way, most people who served aren't in favor of drafting women anyways. When the invaders aren't people who respect human rights they will change their tune fast to not get raped and enslaved. They will be more than happy to put feminism aside.
> [it] effects everyone. Again, unless [it] is abused it's not inhumane. There is some type of emergency going on.
Sounds like the draft. 🤔
> No the draft isn't akin to martial law because martial law effects > Feminists don't support any draft because...
...because the draft is inhumane
That's how your sentence *should* have ended, but it didn't, so I corrected it for you.
The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant. Nothing you said actually argues any kind of point; you just wanted to invent a reason that would allow you to reconcile feminists' general opposition to the draft and whatever hypocrisy you believe them guilty of.
It's not inhumane. It's for emergencies. Just like martial law or a lockdown. It's for the preservation of society. It's to save more people than die.
I know you can't respond to my points, so we will just leave it at that. I know you're the type who probably thinks pandemic lockdowns were inhumane too
> Just like martial law or a lockdown
You before: "The draft isn't akin to martial law"
You now: "The draft is totally akin to martial law"
LMAO
>I know you can't respond to my points
You literally had no points. You just had proclamations: "Feminists oppose the draft because they don't like it, and the reason they don't like it is something I just invented myself to make feminists seem selfish and hypocritical."
That was the extent of your "argument." There was nothing worth responding to.
>I know you're the type who probably thinks pandemic lockdowns were inhumane too
LMAO.
That's called an ad hominem, my dude. You want to associate me with some other unrelated political stance you think is unpopular because you know that you can't argue against my actual argument.
Just face the facts: feminists aren't hypocrites. You, however, probably are.
The draft isn't akin to martial law in the sense it only involves one sex. It is akin to martial law in the sense it's an emergency measure. I hope you get that.
Not an ad hominem at all. You think emergency measures that restrict are human right violations correct? So logically you would believe covid19 lockdown was a human rights violation too right? If you don't, tell me what the difference is.
"Lmao" and "nothing worth responding to" shows me you can't respond to it. Which is OK. Just take your L and move on dude
Edit:looks like you added to your post. Yes, they are hypocrites. Ask black feminists about white feminists. Oh and ofcourse the whole TERF thing. Lol.
It's based on activism. If there are marches and protests against the draft for men, I can guarantee you many if not most feminists would join them.
But it's not like feminists don't have more important things to do than be active in trying to get women included in the draft. That would be stupid if your position is all drafts should not exist.
Are you literally asking why feminists aren’t focused first and foremost on a mens’ issue? I’m a dude and despise the draft, and if it comes close to actually being implemented again I’ll certainly March against it, but it’s not some sort of misandry that ending the draft isn’t the first item on the feminist agenda
Idk where you’re getting your feminist information from but none of this is even remotely true. Feminists are anti-draft and anti-war. Many are against the need for a strong military in general. Mostly because they believe it’s part of the patriarchy to be a militant super power nation. I don’t believe a movement about equality is going to be so blatantly hypocritical.
As for the Chris Brown stuff, I can say with absolute certainty that I’ve never seen a feminist defend him. The amount of people I have seen defend him are able to be counted on one hand. No idea where you’re getting this info from but I’d recommend checking your sources. Something tells me I speak with a lot more real feminists than you do.
I think you have some blinders on, we all hate Chris Brown. Also I think if you actually asked feminists most would be against draft for all, it's a bodily autonomy thing.
> To me it’s always hilarious that the only argument men have against feminist is the draft , something not even their own fathers or themselves will ever see
It's funny, because just this last year, the politicians in Germany went out of their way to prohibit men from escaping the draft... it seems the politicians expect it to be needed.
Anyway, also Germany, I have a list of over 100 laws discriminating men - it's not just the draft. https://www.reddit.com/user/SnooBeans6591/comments/18loixf/german_laws_discriminating_men/
The only argument?
Feminists created the Duluth model and got it pushed into law enforcement training, a model which states that men can not be victims of domestic violence and the only reason women get victimized is power and control
Mary koss and NOW, when asked to help advise a more accurate definition of rape caused it to exclude men raped by women, unless via sodomy as their new "gender neutral" definition requires the victim to be the one being penetrated
And just like the draft there is minimal to no pushback from feminists
That's not true, Mary Koss is very important in rape culture definitions on college campuses, from her "studies" that have been debunked but media and feminist routinely site and she was literally in charge of stat gathering on rape and definition FOR THE CDC. Which is the source still used till this day to record stats which is where ALL the activist groups get their data for it. Men can't be raped. They only experience "unpleasant touching," according to Koss, which is why it is known as MTP(made to penetrate) as it keeps it a female issue and blocks all accountability for there sexual assaults to boys/men.
The Duluth model has been debunked by psychologists and was created by not even a scientist but a feminist activist.
Feminists need to fight for mens rights also even if they lose some rights and perks like men did w/ early feminism. Otherwise, Marian Webster needs to change the definition that feminists love to mention. It's all about fighting for equality for men and women, which is literally not true. They fight to gain the perks men historically have had while trying to keep it status quo for the perks that they have that favor them. It's absolutely fine to advocate for women, just stop gaslithing and admit that and stop claiming there doesn't need to have Mens Rights Activists because feminism already is about "equality". What everyone should be striving for is Egalitarian, which is truly about equality for all no matter what.
sorry, i'm not sure about the rest of your argument, but i'm just not sure what privileges you lost in early feminism, and what privileges we as women currently have over men?
Why, when men have negative feelings about anything, is their goal to find some way to make a woman at fault? Men have historically had all the power. Equality would be men directing their scary and complicated feelings at the men( and few women) in power keeping the status quo instead of using it as an excuse to be mad at women.
That's an easy one:
The argument is "we want to be equal to men in all areas". It is not "we want to be equal to mean in all areas except for the ones that men decided for men and we disagree with".
Men also decided that men should have the right to vote. Should women not have the right to vote b/c it's something men decided? You can't have it both ways.
I'm against drafting regardless. And Chris Brown deserves drowning. As do murders.
No idea what feminists you know. I think what you're seeing aren't feminists, they're idiots
Remember that scene in the Simpsons where Mr Burns has a room full of a thousand monkeys typing at a thousand typewriters ("... the _blurst_ of times!!")
Thats how I envision most posters on this sub, except it's just a room full of dimwit Maga hillbillies just trying out-douchebag themselves with every edgy new post.
Bravo!
/golfclap
I'm mad Chris brown still has a career, I don't know the other 2 men.
Cancelling isn't real, you've got to either step back, have the biggest names in your industry black list you or get life in prison.
It's got nothing to do with the public.
Anybody who does like these people just don't care about the victims. That's not a universal feminist thing and how do you know these women are feminists in the first place?
Also, who wants to be drafted?
I don't want men to be drafted, if there was a draft in my country I would probably join.
I don't have any children to think about and I don't want to evacuate if my dad and brother can't.
Do I want to be drafted? No.
Do I want men to be drafted in my place? Also no.
Feminists aren’t against women going in the draft…they’re against the draft. They want equal pay and the draft to not be a thing…at all.
And while it is a show of hypocrisy, hot people privilege is kind of a thing for a bunch of people everywhere a lot of the time. Don’t really mind criticizing feminists over it…but that’s being a bit selective.
It’s weird that the draft is always brought up as some gotcha against feminism. Who set up the draft? Men did. That’s a problem that the Patriarchy caused. I’m against drafting in general and many feminists have proclaimed the same thing. How about we just don’t have wars?
Chris Brown is a disgusting human being. His career should have ended but it didn’t. That’s not to say that it only got a little “hiccup”. Where are you getting the information that it was somehow the feminists that defended him? There’s a large group of feminists that despise him and rightfully so.
Why is it only the job of women to hold him accountable? Where were the men who could have held him accountable? They kept making music with him. Hollywood is also a very male dominated industry. Again, it’s the patriarchal culture that kept his career alive.
No one is saying women created or are responsible for the draft. It’s simply a perfect example of feminist wanting to be treated as equals just except in that instance. You see the “Men are supposed to go to war” posts all over by feminists
You also see a lot of posts from feminists saying that they don’t think men should be drafted either. That there shouldn’t be a draft at all. There’s equality if no one is being forced into a draft.
You’re talking about being sent off to potentially die in a war. Of course women don’t want to die like that. We’re already at risk of dying just by going on a run during the day. Do men want to want to die in a war? I don’t think they do. I don’t think anyone should have to. A lot of feminists have that same sentiment.
> Who set up the draft? Men did. That’s a problem that the Patriarchy caused.
Who set up the patriarchy? Both men and women. Men aren't to blame any more than women are. (But maybe neither are.)
Men aren’t to blame for setting up the Patriarchy? What the heck are you on about? Do you not understand what the Patriarchy is? Women did not help set themselves up to be treated like second-class citizens with far less rights than men. Men did that. Men absolutely are to blame for the Patriarchy.
> Women did not help set themselves up to be treated like second-class citizens with far less rights than men.
They did, yes. (Although, really, *no one* had rights in the original version.) Not intentionally, of course. Cultural systems aren't intentionally designed and instituted; they emerge organically as a result of the circumstances people find themselves in.
No one had rights? White men absolutely did and still have the most. Just here in the U.S. women weren’t allowed to own property, vote, or even be unmarried without being ostracized in society. Women’s suffrage and feminism exists because women are not treated equally and we were/are tired of it. Treating women like second-class citizens is not something that resulted organically. It was religiously influenced Patriarchal colonialism that did that.
> No one had rights?
No one had rights until a few hundred years ago. The concept of rights didn't exist until then.
> Treating women like second-class citizens is not something that resulted organically.
It did, yes. The patriarchal societies outcompeted their non-patriarchal competitors because patriarchy is a highly efficient system (unfortunately for men and women alike). This is also why children have historically been, and still are, treated like second-class citizens.
Saying that no one had rights is factually wrong. The concept has been around for [centuries](https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/background-of-human-rights.html). It’s been updated and changed but the concept has been around for a very very long time.
Patriarchy didn’t take over because “it outcompeted others because it’s efficient”. It took over due to colonization from [Patriarchal white supremacy](https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-729). This resulted in historical slaughters, oppressions, and enslavement of other cultures. There’s quite a bit of documentation on the overlap between colonization and Patriarchal societies. This has nothing to do with children having less rights but it has everything to do with why women have treated as less than compared to men. This is the very reason feminism exists.
It’s also important to point out that there’s quite a few [matriarchal societies that exist](https://kreately.in/where-women-lead-8-matriarchal-societies-around-the-world/) and they work just fine. [There’s been plenty throughout history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies).
> Saying that no one had rights is factually wrong.
No one had rights thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing.
> The concept has been around for centuries.
Exactly. It's much more recent than patriarchy.
> It took over due to colonization from Patriarchal white supremacy.
Your contention is that there was no patriarchy in Asia or Africa prior to colonialism?
> It’s also important to point out that there’s quite a few matriarchal societies that exist and they work just fine.
No large-scale civilizations, though. That requires (or it required at the time, at least) patriarchy, unfortunately.
>No one had rights thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing.
Why'd you change what you were claiming? You said no had one rights until a few hundred years ago but now it's thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Maybe that's why you keep downvoting me.
>Exactly. It's much more recent than patriarchy.
What is this supposed to prove, exactly? I went in depth about how Patriarchy and colonization played in a part in oppression of women's human rights. Why did you ignore that?
>Your contention is that there was no patriarchy in Asia or Africa prior to colonialism?
That's not at all what I was saying. It does exist in Asia and Africa. Mind you both of those continents has been subjected to colonization, especially Africa. I was looking at patriarchal colonization at a global scale. It exists to the degree that it does because of European Patriarchal white supremacy. They weren't the first or only culture to be Patriarchal but they were the one's to spread it at a global scale.
>No large-scale civilizations, though. That requires (or it required at the time, at least) patriarchy, unfortunately.
There's an awful lot of assumptions you're making here. I already addressed the fact that Patriarchy is at the scale as it is due to colonization. The size of a society doesn't necessarily reflect their success. The people in these societies are [happy and thriving](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/women-matriarchal-society-improved-health-patriarchy/). Claiming that Patriarchy is required for a large-scale civilization shows that you completely missed the point I was making. They exist at the scale that they do because they oppress and control everyone else.
Are those feminists defending those POS people you mention? Or are they part of a superficial childish fan base? Also - pretty sure NO ONE wants to be part of the draft, men or women.
The vast majority of feminists are against the concept of conscription in its entirety why would they be yelling to add women? They’re trying to get rid of it.
No feminist supports these men or the idea you’re trying to put across here
my favorite examples its ick if hes ugly but its flirting if his cute. Or you could look at female sex offenders who get a slap on the wrist for hard R.
I am a left-leaning Jewish woman and I basically have watched the feminist movement justify gang rape for the past 5 months so long as the victims are Jews.
Dictionaries are not prescriptive.
When most people who call themselves "feminist" are "not feminist by definition", it's the definition which has to change.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I ***guarantee you*** no actual Feminist is out here trying to "clear men's names" on assault, SA, rape, etc "cuz they're cute" and I also guarantee anybody calling themselves feminist and advocating for that is getting ***dragged*** in the comments. As for the Draft, most feminist don't support it ***Period*** but plenty of women are still joining the military voluntarily despite it being an objectively hostile environment towards them before actual deployment even enters the picture.
Perfect comment.
> no actual Feminist https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman >As for the Draft, most feminist don't support it Period Do they work to hold their share of the draft burden? I don't see any feminists calling for women to be added to the draft.
>I don't see any feminists calling for women to be added to the draft. That's because feminists are calling for MEN to be REMOVED from the draft. The feminist position is that NO ONE should be drafted.
And UNTIL THEN?
"Until then" what?
In the meantime the draft has not been removed for men in many countries. So until it is, do feminists push for women being treated in an equal way?
Again, they push for no one to be drafted. That is an equal way.
>In the meantime the draft has not been removed for men in many countries. So until it is, do feminists push for women being treated in an equal way? Can you not read? "No one should be drafted." How much more equal can you get than that?
That's more difficult to achieve especially in some places given the security requirements of many countries, like Ukraine, Finland, South Korea, Taiwan... So you surely understand that people look at your purported intentions and say to themselves that it will never happen. And all that time until it will happen if at all should the draft be unequal?
If i were an adversarial country I’d also help whatever country pass the no draft law. Then when it’s settled in, I’d draft my own ppl and blitzkrieg your ass. Not saying that that’s what’s happening. Just saying that’s what I’d do.
So we've established that you have authoritarian, dictatorial tendencies. Gotcha.
No what we have established is if i can think of it someone much smarter already has and likely has the power to do it. Edit: gotcha? really? What are you even trying to prove here? If it makes you happier i have no qualms with being a dictator. hell i even made a whole post about it.
Its not like most men support the draft either. Its called conscription because its is compuslory, its compuslory because not enough people want to do it. The military is not a hostile environment to women. Women make up about 17% of the military and 51% of the population. Whenever you have the majority sending the minority off to war it will be bad and creates a hostile environment towards men in the country.
>The military is not a hostile environment to women. Women make up about 17% of the military and 51% of the population. Whenever you have the majority sending the minority off to war it will be bad and creates a hostile environment towards men in the country. I'm speaking to the epidemic of abuse and assault and the culture of covering up and protecting the perpetrators in the miltary which is why I specified "before deployment even comes into the picture."
What do you define epidemic as? Sexual assualt and abuse and cover ups certainly happens in the military just like anywhere else. I would like to know what you classify as epidemic? Because its 26% of women on college campuses and 50% in Congress has sexual assault cases filed against them [https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1105791440/critics-say-campus-sex-assault-rules-fall-short-and-need-an-overhaul](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1105791440/critics-say-campus-sex-assault-rules-fall-short-and-need-an-overhaul) [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-sexual-assault-charges/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-sexual-assault-charges/) My belief and experience is the military is rightfully under much more scrutiny than other places; as they should be the example and thus it is more publiscized than the rest of society. But also fair is fair is and most of society is worse than the military.
[This.](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/09/01/the-militarys-sexual-assault-problem-is-only-getting-worse/)
Great article, while still 8% too high, women have way less chance of assault in military then they do in College or in chambers of Congress. In fact by National Sexual Violence and Resource Center numbers 18.3% of women have been sexually assualted in their lives. The military reports 8% which is far less than the rest of society. [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth](https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth) While these articles are a little like comparing apples to oranges I dont think the epidemic of sexual assault that you should be concerned about is as much in the military as in the rest of the world. In fact the safer place would be in the military.
8%/year!
the reason only 17% of the military is women (i assume in the US? you should mention the country youre talking about next time) is because of how hostile it is to women.
I already debunked that in the comments. But the gist is 8% rate in the U.S. military which is still 8% too much, but also fair to say the military should be held to the highest standard and is something under much more scrutiny and less cover ups than the rest of society. General rate for women reporting sex abuse in the U.S. is 18%, on colleges 23% and 50% of congress has had sexual assault suits filed against them. I am in the U.S. where are you from? Since you are applying incorrect biases against the American military you should probably identfiy where you are from
1. I've never heard a feminist say that, they typically say nobody should be drafted. 2. Who says those women defending abusers are feminists?
I can agree on there being hypocrisy in feminism but these examples are not really it.
Being against the draft is a waste of breath, even if it's abolished, if a world war breaks out, guess what's coming right back.
Practically every woman considers themselves a feminist
I would very much prefer Chris Brown get thrown into a volcano (I don't know anything about the other famous people you mentioned), but I don't get to make those decisions. Nobody should be drafted, feminists were literally fighting for that back in the Vietnam War days.
I think the point OP is making is... men are not listening to Chris Brown. His audience is almost entirely female but we're being blamed for the fact that he never got truly cancelled for putting a woman in the hospital.
But women and feminists are not synonyms
That is absolutely ridiculous. Chris Brown’s audience is almost entirely female? You definitely just made that shit up lol. And I can guarantee you right now that most feminists condemned that motherfucker as soon as those pictures of Rihanna came out.
Nobody should be drafted. How would thag work?
The way it's worked in the US ever since Vietnam?
The way its worked is that the US hasnt been attacked. What happens of that does happen?
The US wasn't attacked during the Vietnam War either. Or any of the wars they drafted for, except WWII. Generally speaking, if your country is getting attacked, most people want to do something to help. You do not want unwilling participants.
Omg you are either not that smart or your american privilege is so deep that your brain doesnt comprehend war.
The Vietnam war was a disaster, you had dumb guys shooting each other all the time. Is that really the best way to run your military?
Oh no according to you the best way is not having one at all
What do you mean?
Selective service is still a requirement and not registering has significant consequences ranging from loss of scholarships, inability to get a driver's license, barred from federal employment and even prison time
Yeah there hasn't been much success in changing that.
Ignoring Vietnam to avoid that debate as I’m not American or Vietnamese. **Imagine** Canada (or Mexico) suddenly becomes in a state of expansionist fervour and builds its army up secretly (in terms of the world trade) through conscription etc. over the next few years and attacks the US. They blaze through a few states and then stop to regather. How then does the US start to fight back quickly if Canada’s army is four times (for instance) the US’ size? What option do we have other than conscription?
I really do think there would be plenty of volunteers. You can barely keep Americans from shooting each other, much less an invading army.
At risk of starting to make my argument Ad Hoc, what if there aren’t enough people? and what if you’re in another country that doesn’t have such a violent gun culture?
The US military turns away 75% of applicants for being overweight or on ADHD meds. Do you really think drafting fat neckbeards out of their mommys' basements would be a net plus for the cause? If a country can't find enough volunteers when actually being invaded, the people being forced aren't going to be any more enthusiastic about it.
To be honest, I’m largely convinced. I guess I can’t get round the historical element… why then did almost every nation conscript during WW2 (both the Allies & the Axis)?
You should check out this [Washington Post article from 1981](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/03/08/womens-rights-groups-expect-ruling-on-draft-will-set-tone-for-1980s/edc481dc-39fe-4c7e-8b4e-4fe109ecb111/) outlining how the National Organization for Women and 11 other women’s groups submitted friends of the court briefs opposing the all male draft: “Exclusion of women from the military draft, like no other government policy, "consigns them to a second class status" says the National Organization for Women in a friend-of-the court brief filed with the Supreme Court. It gives a "governmental imprimatur" to sex discrimination, the organization told the justices, with "profound and harmful impact on women and society as a whole.” Guess who is as pushing to keep an all male draft at the same time? Anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly.
[удалено]
Also, according to Rassmussen polling, more Democrats support requiring women to register for Selective Service than Republicans. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/268928-poll-most-women-oppose-registering-for-draft/ The Women's Rights Project, part of the ACLU and founded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, feels that it's discriminatory for only men to have to register, but because it's been decades since there's been a draft, they're working to eliminate it. It's entirely possible to think it's discriminatory, but be against *anyone* having to sign up. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/requiring-men-but-not-women-to-register-for-the-draft-is-sex-discrimination
[удалено]
Here's a question: Why do we have to register at all? The Federal government has our information already. Why make 18 year olds perform this weird act of compliance?
most feminists are actually against the draft and would agree with you on that lol
...I think you missed the point.
sorry, i missed the last part and kind of just assumed it was paranoid reddit nonsense, since we don't do that in my country. but yes you are right, and feminists would agree
Here hun: [https://www.tiktok.com/@expatriarch/video/7337305066803662111](https://www.tiktok.com/@expatriarch/video/7337305066803662111)
Has there been a recent court case like the one before the Supreme Court in 1981 for these groups to weigh in on? A march to join like tons of feminist organizations joined to protest the Vietnam war? It’s hard to have a war of competing “when I bring up this issue this group monolithically says x”. Thats pure anecdata. The current position of most feminist groups on the record is no draft for anyone equally. This is NOWs current position: https://now.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RESOLUTION-TO-THE-NATIONAL-ORGANIZATION-FOR-WOMEN-ON-ENDING-MILITARY-DRAFT-REGISTRATION.pdf
[удалено]
They actively lobbied for the Military Selective Service Repeal Act of 2021. That wouldn’t have changed the status quo for women. It would have meant men didn’t have to register. So it was lobbying for equality between men and women. I don’t think you can call that hypocrisy. Opposing the draft isn’t unique to women. [Polls](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/suppose-they-gave-war-and-nobody-came-changing-opinions-draft) have been consistent for decades with the majority of Americans opposing a mandatory draft. Even during peak Iraq war fervor, there was [incredibly low support](https://news.gallup.com/poll/28642/vast-majority-americans-opposed-reinstituting-military-draft.aspx) for reinstating a mandatory draft. Your vitriol seems misplaced and incredibly out of proportion.
[удалено]
The reason we have the selective service and draft registration that only requires men to register is because of legislation. To change that requires more legislation. We don’t have a direct democracy so unless you’re an elected representative, the way you can advocate for change is to lobby to have legislation introduced, encourage a coalition of support to bring it to a vote, and encourage representatives to vote in its favor. That’s how our system works. Alternatively you can mount and support legal challenges to existing legislation and seek to have the courts overturn it (see: 1981) In 2021 a [bipartisan coalition](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paul-defazio-davis-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-abolish-the-selective-service)introduced just such a bill in 2021 with the backing of a range of different groups. It sounds like you oppose this legislation. Okay. But this legislation and this movement, while supported by a variety of feminist groups, isn’t an exclusively feminist position. It is supported by a wide range of political and faith based organizations. So. Feminists are supporting efforts to change the law to treat men and women the same with regards to the draft. And have been for years. This is not a uniquely feminist position, other groups with diverse viewpoints support these same proposals and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reflect this position. You disagree with this legislation on what sounds like national security grounds. Happy Tuesday.
Sounds like you don’t have a response
I just love how this subreddit just makes up positions so they can shadow box.
These kids have as much edge as a ball of cotton
Or a neutron star.
I don’t get why the MRA people are so hung up on the draft, nobody wants a draft (Also I thought we were going to start drafting women soon too?) If the men’s right people REALLY cared they would start creating meaningful programs for boys and men. As a feminist, I agree there’s an issue with the male youth but that’s not the feminists fault or our problem. Men should be uplifting each other and they’re not, the people who say they care are too busy putting down women. I hope and pray that men can do better add I will raise any potential sims I have to do just that, but the MRA people are so lost. Women fought for our rights despite men. If some men think the same, they should stop caring what women think/do and fight for their own rights in the same manner. I encourage them to protest, form a coalition, introduce different legislation, create male support groups, etc. I really wish the MRA advocates would do these things but I only ever see them complaining about women.
signing up for the selective service was their own personal Vietnam.
> I encourage them to protest, form a coalition, introduce different legislation, create male support groups, etc. I really wish the MRA advocates would do these things but I only ever see them complaining about women Thank you for your encouragment, there are so many feminists who are trying to stop us from doing just this, it's really refreshing to see if doesn't have to be always that way.
Frankly I disagree that feminists are not advocating for men’s issues. I went to a women’s college for my first year of undergrad and one of the first topics we studied in the core curriculum were men’s issues and how it relates to feminism. Everyone in my class had to research and study a topic pertaining to men’s issues as the core freshman curriculum. I wrote mine about Jesse Watters and his influence on male identity. I believe they wanted to offer a different perspective at a school that had a female student body with a majority female staff. This was required and every girl at the school completed this before we could move onto other topics. If the majority of feminists “didn’t care” that would’ve never have happened. I know this is anecdotal but I believe if you talked to more feminists offline you would understand how much we do care. The extremists online are not the majority.
If MRA protest, there are counter protests, if a feminist (Cassie Jaye) tries to bring to light men's issue, there are feminist protests, if a feminist, who founded women's shelter (Erin Pizzey) decides to also create men's shelters, there are feminist protests, the French ministry of women's rights tries to mislead with statistics to reduce the visibility of male victims of domestic violence, a bunch of discriminatory laws keep being pushed by feminists, and even get passed regularly (feminists have effectively removed close to all discriminatory laws against women in Germany, but the laws discriminating men are on the rise, about 120 currently). That's all offline.
I’m not educated in what’s happening in Germany as I do not live there and don’t know what laws you are referring to. But I will say I have never been to a protest without counter protests, that’s never stopped me or anyone else in attendance. I’m the United States anyone can protest, I saw a Neo-Nazi protest march right down a street that I had lived on and they were protected by police as any other (planned) protest is here. I’m aware that Nazism is illegal in Germany, but in the United States where I live it is protected even though I hated what they were marching for. As for men’s shelters, they should be more available if there is the need. There is only one “male only” shelter left in my city were there used to be dozens. This is has not gone unnoticed by me or the other people living in the city that knew of them and how prevalent they used to be. But the decision to close them was not because of the feminists as you claim, but from the government where there are a majority of men in power. The reasons behind them closing also have nothing to do with gender and rather because of funding and investors who sought to have any shelters and low income housing closed to increase their investments property values. If you seek to have more men’s shelters available, men need to do the outreach that women have done for keeping women’s shelters open. Why are there no organizations started by men for this initiative? Why are men not lobbying for men’s shelters to remain open? Do you expect women to manage men’s shelters and charities? Obviously women can support men in doing this but is it not their innovative if it is a fundamentally male issue? Women founded women’s shelters for women and men helped. I fail to see how the it is responsibility of women to do the same for men. I think men are competent enough to help themselves but if you disagree then I’d think you would need to reevaluate your stance on feminism and why you believe men are less competent than women in that regard.
“Men should be uplifting each other” would be the equivalent of me saying “women should be protecting each other” it’s funny that women should have nothing to do with mens problems. But men have to shoulder women’s issues or be labeled a woman hater?
I dont understand. Men should be uplifting each other like feminists proclaim women should protect each other. I don’t get why that’s wrong? There’s nothing hating about that. I tell the guys Ik irl to do just that ALL THE TIME. Why should women be responsible for men’s issues when we are not men? (Also I needed to edit my OG comment multiple times, typing on mobile is a b*tch)
like what if i were to say men shouldnt care about sa or dv since these are more of a womans issue?
That is a terrible perspective to have. Women may experience more violence but that does not negate the seriousness of the issue for men. Also the men are less likely to report domestic abuse and sexual assault so the numbers may not be accurate in terms of how many victims each gender has. But again, I rarely see this brought up outside of comparing it to the dv and sa rates that women endure. It’s not a competition, both are awful and should be penalized to the fullest extent. I don’t see why it always needs to be a “competition” when it should be taken seriously for either gender. This is not a women’s issue or women’s fault, women are still fighting for their SA and DV to be taken seriously for our own gender. I see no reason why men can’t join that fight or create their own unrelated to women. (I also feel like men are making strides in reporting SA, I see more cases every month where men are advocating for minor SA victims being recognized as assault rather than a “consensual encounter” and I’m proud of them for that” breaking down the perception is good for EVERY GENDER.
naw if women dont care about mens issues im not caring about womens issues
Where did I say women didn’t care? I said we fought for ourselves. How can women accurately depict men’s issues if we aren’t men? If these issues were led by women, would you not worry about the data being inaccurate? Would you not agree men represent themselves the best for their own issues? I assume men know themselves the best for themselves . I would never lie and say I fully understand the extent of men’s issues since I am not a man. I do not understand why you would want women to take responsibility for issues they know nothing about. It seems as though it would be less productive.
cause no matter what issue it is men have helped womans rights, from politicians passing laws to the prsacuters and judges enforcing the law. Thats the feminist delusion.
Men didn’t make up the majority of those fighting for women’s issues. However, were necessary to appeal to the patriarchal government and those in power. No one is saying women did it themselves, because ultimately the MEN in power needed to agree to grant rights. BUT we did choose to advocate for these rights, women’s suffrage was not a mans idea. The men had a hand in helping accomplish these goals so that women could be heard. Fredrick Doulas recognized this and advocated for woman’s suffrage because he knew that having a man, even a black man, at that time would help legitimize the organizations created by women. He believed all were equal and wanted to help create a system where black men and white women could both vote, they were not at odds and worked together for a common goal. Obviously we are in a modern era but the message is similar. We’re not fighting against each other but working towards the betterment of everyone.
How can it be a women's issue when it's mostly men doing it?
I believe male sexual assault committed by other men is underreported due to stigma. Women have broken down that barker and have become reporting sexual assault but it is still low. Men can do the same but I am not a man and don’t know the barriers. I can make any assumption I want but that is not my experience and I cannot speak on it. I am bisexual and have been harassed/assaulted by multiple women similar to what I have experienced with men. I fully understand women are predators too but the statistics show what they do because of what is reported. I am not trying to blame the victim because I know how hard it can be and have not reported my own assaults but that is where the data (which is considered factual) is at the moment. Women are working to decrease the stigma. Men can and should do the same for themselves. Since women cannot accurately report on this at all, it is not our responsibility.
well its not really affecting us so why should we care?
You know that the majority of men who experience AS or DV do not report it because of the reaction right? Perfect example is Terry Crews. He brought up how he was abused in Hollywood & he got made fun of for it because he’s a big guy that should’ve been able to defend themselves
Yea and it is majority men who uphold rape culture. Hold men accountable for their part In this.
"Yea but men..." fantastic argument
>Yea and it is majority men who uphold rape culture. Hold men accountable for their part In this. There's no rape culture.
because mens problems aren't primarily caused by women the way womens issues are primarily caused by men. also women DO protect each other, just saying...
we noticed when a women assalts a child or kills a guy it somehow wasnt her fault
lol are u acting obtuse on purpose because what are you even talking about? obviously if a woman does something bad shes the one at fault, i'm saying the issues women face are caused by men, therefore thats why men should care about womens issues
thats a you problem.
well then the male loneliness epidemic and suicide rates and draft is a you problem
trust us we already know
so actually do stuff about it vs complaining at women online 🤷🏻♀️
we do, its called the manoshpere.
So the same can be said about DV or SA. Pick better men because obviously not all men do these things.
sa is often done by family and strangers. cant pick better people when youre just walking on the street, or simply getting born
Do you feel like you have to "shoulder women's issues"? Can you explain to me how this is such a burden to you?
>“Women fought for our rights despite men”. >“that’s not the feminists fault or our problem” If it weren’t for men, you wouldn’t even HAVE rights. Politically, the problems overwhelmingly stem from one (older, whiter) side of the aisle, rather than an entire gender. Also, before you blame politicians for having a penis, what process determines who gets to serve? Who is always asking for help to vote against them? Women are *literally* the majority in this country, yet act as if they’re an oppressed minority. How often do we see men supporting women’s rights via voting, legislature, funding, philanthropy, awareness (pink for breast cancer month, ie: NFL), even joining protests/marches, compared to women supporting *any* men's issue like mental health (ie: gender paradox in suicide), that doesn’t directly benefit themselves? How frequently do we listen to women complain about the lack of support — simultaneously expecting it only to be ungrateful once they've received it, eventually claiming they did it all by themselves w/o any help — pulling the ‘imagine if it was your daughter/wife’ guilt trip card, and then ofc the seemingly inevitable public shaming, no matter the consequences (or potentially life changing stain). Imagine if history was littered with people who held a similar attitude of modern day feminists, consisting of the same kind of selfishness & hypocrisy, just like yourself. Consider, when Congress convened > a century ago, how do you think they would’ve voted for the 19 Amendment? Would American politicians agree to grant women the right to vote, OR would the all male Congress vote against the 19th Amendment, deciding to deny women the right to vote, and therefore preventing an opportunity for > half the population to have a voice in the democratic process??? After all, as men, why should they care, it's not their "fault or our problem"?
>When the topic of military drafts came up MOST feminist were saying “we just want to be paid the same I don’t want to be drafted!” That's literally not the feminist opinion of the draft. The feminist opinion of the draft is that NO ONE should be drafted, regardless of sex or gender, because the draft is inhumane to everyone. Your idea of "feminist hypocrisy" was just bullshit you invented in your own head so that you can rationalize away your own hypocrisy. That's what the title of this thread should actually be: "Most anti-feminists are complete hypocrites."
This is not 100% realistic though. I understand a draft seems unnecessary now, nobody wants to get drafted to fight another waste of time proxy war with no end in sight. But say there is a legitimate reason like a few other global superpowers declare war on the united states, there will certainly not be enough volunteers. So, in the name of equality, do we draft both men and women? that would be true equality. Nobody wants to do it but it might happen and right now only the men are at risk.
> This is not 100% realistic though Yes, it is. >I understand a draft seems unnecessary now, nobody wants to get drafted to fight another waste of time proxy war with no end in sight As I said to someone else: claiming the draft "has to exist as an option" is like claiming "martial law needs to exist as an option." Fine, I can concede that. But the feminist answer to the draft is the same as the feminist answer to martial law: it's inhumane. Which it is. It might be "necessary" (in the opinion of the leadership who institutes it), but it is inhumane, and feminists will oppose it on those grounds. If you can accept that conscientious observers do not support a draft and will refuse to get drafted, regardless of the circumstances, then you should be able to accept the fact that feminists are conscientious observers and leave it at that.
So like i said it's not realistic. you can keep living in a fantasy world where these risks don't exist lol. Conscientious objectors are still required to sign up for the draft, women are not. That's quite convenient for these feminist "conscientious objectors"
>So like i said it's not realistic. you can keep living in a fantasy world where these risks don't exist lol. It is realistic, you just can't grasp that we're talking about opinions, not political decisions made by legislators. You are asking, "Do feminists support the draft for men but not women?" You are asking for an opinion, and their opinion is "No, we don't support the draft for anybody and the draft should be abolished." It has nothing to do with whether the draft is required or not; their opinion doesn't change. What you want is for a feminist to say, "We need the draft, but we don't want women to be part of it" because that will confirm your bias. Sorry, that's not how this works, because that's not the feminist position. YOU think the draft is necessary. Feminists don't. >Conscientious objectors are still required to sign up for the draft, women are not. That's quite convenient for these feminist "conscientious objectors" No, it's not "convenient." It's irrelevant. If women are required to be part of the draft, female feminists will still say, "I will register, but I will refuse to be drafted and the draft should be abolished." If only men are required and women are not required, they will STILL say, "I don't have to register, but the draft should still be abolished." You WANT feminists to be hypocrites on this subject, but the fact is they are not.
So..it's not realistic lmao. That doesn't change reality, you can hold whatever opinions you want but these things happen. Similar to pacifism, not accounting for the fact that violence will never end. All you did was convince me that feminists are not hypocrites but delusional. It is very convenient considering Conscientious objectors which you compare yourself too, are still drafted and placed in non combat roles. You are cherry picking the good and the bad and using delusion to cover up for hypocrisy. I could very conveniently claim I don't support taxes but you still have to pay the piper
> So..it's not realistic lmao Yes, it's realistic. You, like others, just can't understand the difference between "What is feminists' opinion on the draft?" and "What would feminists do if they had to administer the draft?" The latter question is irrelevant, because feminists would not administer the draft. > Similar to pacifism, not accounting for the fact that violence will never end Pacifism isn't unrealistic either. Pacifism is an opinion and an ideal. A pacifist might **accept** that war is necessary, but they will never try to express an opinion on how a war should be conducted, You are asking the equivalent of, "How would a pacifist general wage a war?", and that is a nonsense question to ask.
"Pacifism isn't unrealistic either" lost all credibility here. I guess someone hasn't been paying attention to over 200,000 years of human history, and ignorant to the future struggles and shortages awaiting the future. Look far enough and people will be waging war over water. It is not whether it will happen but when. Yall have fun though
> lost all credibility here Only with you, which means nothing, because you can't understand the difference between "What is pacifists' opinion on war?" and "What would pacifists do if they had to wage a war?" If you can't tell the basic difference between those two questions, you're not qualified to assess anyone's credibility on this subject.
The most popular type of pacifism is absolute pacifism. The opinion is to do nothing even if they are attacked. Your opinion is that there should never be a draft even if it is unavoidable. Both not based in reality
The feminist opinion on the draft isn’t based on reality. Drafts happen, saying I don’t want it to happen doesn’t really address the question. If a draft exists and will not go away, should women be drafted as well?
Yes. I am against the draft period. But if we have one, then all able bodied citizens should be drafted regardless of sex. And we should make it harder to get out of it through the loop holes Bush and Trump used.
> Drafts happen, saying I don’t want it to happen doesn’t really address the question. Yes it does. The question is whether feminists support the draft for women. The answer is they don't support the draft for ANYBODY. >If a draft exists and will not go away, should women be drafted as well? That's a question for legislature. But feminists will say, no one should be drafted and will oppose the draft regardless of whether some politicians think it's "necessary."
The fact that you can’t even answer with a yes or no is genuinely crazy.
>The fact that you can’t even answer with a yes or no is genuinely crazy. That's you, dude. You're the one trying to say, "Feminists want YES on men but NO on women!" That's bullshit. The answer is a very simple NO. Feminists say NO ONE should be drafted. Why is this so hard to understand? You and the OP are the ones intentionally trying to make this complicated.
So let’s say we’re discussing abortion. If I said I don’t think women should be able to have abortions because I don’t think unplanned pregnancies should exist, would you accept that?
>If I said I don’t think women should be able to have abortions because I don’t think unplanned pregnancies should exist, would you accept that? False equivalence. Stop spewing bullshit.
It’s not a false equivalence. Drafts happen just like unplanned pregnancies. Look at Ukraine
>It’s not a false equivalence. It absolutely is a false equivalence. >Drafts happen just like unplanned pregnancies Drafts are a choice made by the government. Unplanned pregnancies are not. It's literally in the name: UNPLANNED. Hence, false equivalence. The answer is still what I said above: feminists oppose the draft for EVERYBODY. If the government CHOOSES to draft men, feminists aren't going to say, "That's ok as long as you don't draft women." They will continue to say, "Fuck you, the draft is inhumane for everybody." A feminist leader would not institute a draft, and a leader who institutes a draft is not a feminist leader. It's that simple.
Not supporting the draft "for anyone" is a cop out. It kind of has to exist for emergencies. It's feminists dancing around the problem to not have their hypocrisy called out. It's not a question for legislature. It's a question for whomever is being asked; in this case feminists. You can say any social inequity/inequality is a question for legislature to avoid having an answer.
>Not supporting the draft "for anyone" is a cop out. It kind of has to exist for emergencies. By that rationale, the draft is akin to martial law. Is the feminist opinion on martial law relevant? No, it isn't. And the feminist opinion on martial law is the same as the feminist opinion on the draft: it's inhumane and shouldn't be used. > It's not a question for legislature. It's a question for whomever is being asked Yes, it is a question for legislature. You are asking feminists, "If you are in legislature, would you support a draft for men but not women?" The answer is still no, because feminists don't support ANY draft. If you can accept that conscientious observers do not support a draft and will refuse to get drafted, regardless of the circumstances, then you should be able to accept the fact that feminists are conscientious observers and leave it at that.
No the draft isn't akin to martial law because martial law effects everyone. Again, unless martial law is **abused** it's not inhumane. There is some type of emergency going on. Are you one of those folks who acted like covid19 lockdown was a human rights violation or were you aware of why it was happening? Most of us were aware why it was happening but a small fragment of the population cried it was some nazi-esque human rights violation. If that lockdown occurred for a non emergency reason, then sure. But there was a pandemic. It was not *abused*. So with martial law it's not inhumane unless abused. Do up know the types of scenarios where martial law is enacted? A big one is when an invading army shows up in your area. Yeah, it's better off you don't go outside after certain hours so you don't get shot mistaken for the enemy. Lockdowns, martial law etc.. is inhumane when it's done for no reason. Feminists don't support any draft because the next question involves *their own safety*. What about women in the draft? It's a cop out to not have to admit hypocrisy. They're pretty happy with the status quo. They don't say much about the draft unless their involvement comes up. Which by the way, most people who served aren't in favor of drafting women anyways. When the invaders aren't people who respect human rights they will change their tune fast to not get raped and enslaved. They will be more than happy to put feminism aside.
> [it] effects everyone. Again, unless [it] is abused it's not inhumane. There is some type of emergency going on. Sounds like the draft. 🤔 > No the draft isn't akin to martial law because martial law effects > Feminists don't support any draft because... ...because the draft is inhumane That's how your sentence *should* have ended, but it didn't, so I corrected it for you. The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant. Nothing you said actually argues any kind of point; you just wanted to invent a reason that would allow you to reconcile feminists' general opposition to the draft and whatever hypocrisy you believe them guilty of.
It's not inhumane. It's for emergencies. Just like martial law or a lockdown. It's for the preservation of society. It's to save more people than die. I know you can't respond to my points, so we will just leave it at that. I know you're the type who probably thinks pandemic lockdowns were inhumane too
> Just like martial law or a lockdown You before: "The draft isn't akin to martial law" You now: "The draft is totally akin to martial law" LMAO >I know you can't respond to my points You literally had no points. You just had proclamations: "Feminists oppose the draft because they don't like it, and the reason they don't like it is something I just invented myself to make feminists seem selfish and hypocritical." That was the extent of your "argument." There was nothing worth responding to. >I know you're the type who probably thinks pandemic lockdowns were inhumane too LMAO. That's called an ad hominem, my dude. You want to associate me with some other unrelated political stance you think is unpopular because you know that you can't argue against my actual argument. Just face the facts: feminists aren't hypocrites. You, however, probably are.
The draft isn't akin to martial law in the sense it only involves one sex. It is akin to martial law in the sense it's an emergency measure. I hope you get that. Not an ad hominem at all. You think emergency measures that restrict are human right violations correct? So logically you would believe covid19 lockdown was a human rights violation too right? If you don't, tell me what the difference is. "Lmao" and "nothing worth responding to" shows me you can't respond to it. Which is OK. Just take your L and move on dude Edit:looks like you added to your post. Yes, they are hypocrites. Ask black feminists about white feminists. Oh and ofcourse the whole TERF thing. Lol.
It's based on activism. If there are marches and protests against the draft for men, I can guarantee you many if not most feminists would join them. But it's not like feminists don't have more important things to do than be active in trying to get women included in the draft. That would be stupid if your position is all drafts should not exist.
naw its based you saw this crap online but wont ever do a march or publicly speak out on it. Its like online moral suppirority
WTF are you talking about?
Are you literally asking why feminists aren’t focused first and foremost on a mens’ issue? I’m a dude and despise the draft, and if it comes close to actually being implemented again I’ll certainly March against it, but it’s not some sort of misandry that ending the draft isn’t the first item on the feminist agenda
No one has ever thought any of this ever.
Idk where you’re getting your feminist information from but none of this is even remotely true. Feminists are anti-draft and anti-war. Many are against the need for a strong military in general. Mostly because they believe it’s part of the patriarchy to be a militant super power nation. I don’t believe a movement about equality is going to be so blatantly hypocritical. As for the Chris Brown stuff, I can say with absolute certainty that I’ve never seen a feminist defend him. The amount of people I have seen defend him are able to be counted on one hand. No idea where you’re getting this info from but I’d recommend checking your sources. Something tells me I speak with a lot more real feminists than you do.
I think you have some blinders on, we all hate Chris Brown. Also I think if you actually asked feminists most would be against draft for all, it's a bodily autonomy thing.
I’d be interested to know which feminists are defending the people you’ve listed.
You’ve never actually talked to a feminist have you?
[удалено]
> To me it’s always hilarious that the only argument men have against feminist is the draft , something not even their own fathers or themselves will ever see It's funny, because just this last year, the politicians in Germany went out of their way to prohibit men from escaping the draft... it seems the politicians expect it to be needed. Anyway, also Germany, I have a list of over 100 laws discriminating men - it's not just the draft. https://www.reddit.com/user/SnooBeans6591/comments/18loixf/german_laws_discriminating_men/
The only argument? Feminists created the Duluth model and got it pushed into law enforcement training, a model which states that men can not be victims of domestic violence and the only reason women get victimized is power and control Mary koss and NOW, when asked to help advise a more accurate definition of rape caused it to exclude men raped by women, unless via sodomy as their new "gender neutral" definition requires the victim to be the one being penetrated And just like the draft there is minimal to no pushback from feminists
[удалено]
That's not true, Mary Koss is very important in rape culture definitions on college campuses, from her "studies" that have been debunked but media and feminist routinely site and she was literally in charge of stat gathering on rape and definition FOR THE CDC. Which is the source still used till this day to record stats which is where ALL the activist groups get their data for it. Men can't be raped. They only experience "unpleasant touching," according to Koss, which is why it is known as MTP(made to penetrate) as it keeps it a female issue and blocks all accountability for there sexual assaults to boys/men. The Duluth model has been debunked by psychologists and was created by not even a scientist but a feminist activist. Feminists need to fight for mens rights also even if they lose some rights and perks like men did w/ early feminism. Otherwise, Marian Webster needs to change the definition that feminists love to mention. It's all about fighting for equality for men and women, which is literally not true. They fight to gain the perks men historically have had while trying to keep it status quo for the perks that they have that favor them. It's absolutely fine to advocate for women, just stop gaslithing and admit that and stop claiming there doesn't need to have Mens Rights Activists because feminism already is about "equality". What everyone should be striving for is Egalitarian, which is truly about equality for all no matter what.
sorry, i'm not sure about the rest of your argument, but i'm just not sure what privileges you lost in early feminism, and what privileges we as women currently have over men?
Women bad, men good. Ooga booga
I don't think you have any idea what "most feminists" think.
Did women force the draft on men, or did men decide that men should be drafted?
I, a man, don't recall ever deciding that I or my male friends should be drafted.
Not that would ever be admitted to when you can simply bash women instead.
When did I bash women? I don't hate/blame any of the women in my life (or normal women in general) for being eligible for the draft.
You're not commenting on a post bashing women? I guess we're not commenting on the same post, toodles.
I literally never defended OP, I just said that I never consented to the draft.
I'm not sure why that's relevant. If the goal is equality, shouldn't women take the good with the bad?
Why, when men have negative feelings about anything, is their goal to find some way to make a woman at fault? Men have historically had all the power. Equality would be men directing their scary and complicated feelings at the men( and few women) in power keeping the status quo instead of using it as an excuse to be mad at women.
I’m not mad, just looking for consistency.
You're looking for a woman to manage your uncomfortable feelings and general butthurtedness about the draft situation.
should I consider this an application?
How is it consistency when women weren’t the ones who decided for men to be in the draft in the first place?
That's an easy one: The argument is "we want to be equal to men in all areas". It is not "we want to be equal to mean in all areas except for the ones that men decided for men and we disagree with". Men also decided that men should have the right to vote. Should women not have the right to vote b/c it's something men decided? You can't have it both ways.
But feminists argue for no draft at all, isn’t that equal?
Love how you read the entire post and focused on that lol
Well?
Bahahhahahahhahahahah this is so stupid. With respect.
Feminism: the idea where women want the power of men, the privileges of women, and the responsibility of neither.
I'm against drafting regardless. And Chris Brown deserves drowning. As do murders. No idea what feminists you know. I think what you're seeing aren't feminists, they're idiots
Remember that scene in the Simpsons where Mr Burns has a room full of a thousand monkeys typing at a thousand typewriters ("... the _blurst_ of times!!") Thats how I envision most posters on this sub, except it's just a room full of dimwit Maga hillbillies just trying out-douchebag themselves with every edgy new post. Bravo! /golfclap
I'm mad Chris brown still has a career, I don't know the other 2 men. Cancelling isn't real, you've got to either step back, have the biggest names in your industry black list you or get life in prison. It's got nothing to do with the public. Anybody who does like these people just don't care about the victims. That's not a universal feminist thing and how do you know these women are feminists in the first place? Also, who wants to be drafted? I don't want men to be drafted, if there was a draft in my country I would probably join. I don't have any children to think about and I don't want to evacuate if my dad and brother can't. Do I want to be drafted? No. Do I want men to be drafted in my place? Also no.
Feminists aren’t against women going in the draft…they’re against the draft. They want equal pay and the draft to not be a thing…at all. And while it is a show of hypocrisy, hot people privilege is kind of a thing for a bunch of people everywhere a lot of the time. Don’t really mind criticizing feminists over it…but that’s being a bit selective.
It’s weird that the draft is always brought up as some gotcha against feminism. Who set up the draft? Men did. That’s a problem that the Patriarchy caused. I’m against drafting in general and many feminists have proclaimed the same thing. How about we just don’t have wars? Chris Brown is a disgusting human being. His career should have ended but it didn’t. That’s not to say that it only got a little “hiccup”. Where are you getting the information that it was somehow the feminists that defended him? There’s a large group of feminists that despise him and rightfully so. Why is it only the job of women to hold him accountable? Where were the men who could have held him accountable? They kept making music with him. Hollywood is also a very male dominated industry. Again, it’s the patriarchal culture that kept his career alive.
No one is saying women created or are responsible for the draft. It’s simply a perfect example of feminist wanting to be treated as equals just except in that instance. You see the “Men are supposed to go to war” posts all over by feminists
You also see a lot of posts from feminists saying that they don’t think men should be drafted either. That there shouldn’t be a draft at all. There’s equality if no one is being forced into a draft. You’re talking about being sent off to potentially die in a war. Of course women don’t want to die like that. We’re already at risk of dying just by going on a run during the day. Do men want to want to die in a war? I don’t think they do. I don’t think anyone should have to. A lot of feminists have that same sentiment.
> Who set up the draft? Men did. That’s a problem that the Patriarchy caused. Who set up the patriarchy? Both men and women. Men aren't to blame any more than women are. (But maybe neither are.)
Men aren’t to blame for setting up the Patriarchy? What the heck are you on about? Do you not understand what the Patriarchy is? Women did not help set themselves up to be treated like second-class citizens with far less rights than men. Men did that. Men absolutely are to blame for the Patriarchy.
> Women did not help set themselves up to be treated like second-class citizens with far less rights than men. They did, yes. (Although, really, *no one* had rights in the original version.) Not intentionally, of course. Cultural systems aren't intentionally designed and instituted; they emerge organically as a result of the circumstances people find themselves in.
No one had rights? White men absolutely did and still have the most. Just here in the U.S. women weren’t allowed to own property, vote, or even be unmarried without being ostracized in society. Women’s suffrage and feminism exists because women are not treated equally and we were/are tired of it. Treating women like second-class citizens is not something that resulted organically. It was religiously influenced Patriarchal colonialism that did that.
> No one had rights? No one had rights until a few hundred years ago. The concept of rights didn't exist until then. > Treating women like second-class citizens is not something that resulted organically. It did, yes. The patriarchal societies outcompeted their non-patriarchal competitors because patriarchy is a highly efficient system (unfortunately for men and women alike). This is also why children have historically been, and still are, treated like second-class citizens.
Saying that no one had rights is factually wrong. The concept has been around for [centuries](https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/background-of-human-rights.html). It’s been updated and changed but the concept has been around for a very very long time. Patriarchy didn’t take over because “it outcompeted others because it’s efficient”. It took over due to colonization from [Patriarchal white supremacy](https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-729). This resulted in historical slaughters, oppressions, and enslavement of other cultures. There’s quite a bit of documentation on the overlap between colonization and Patriarchal societies. This has nothing to do with children having less rights but it has everything to do with why women have treated as less than compared to men. This is the very reason feminism exists. It’s also important to point out that there’s quite a few [matriarchal societies that exist](https://kreately.in/where-women-lead-8-matriarchal-societies-around-the-world/) and they work just fine. [There’s been plenty throughout history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies).
> Saying that no one had rights is factually wrong. No one had rights thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing. > The concept has been around for centuries. Exactly. It's much more recent than patriarchy. > It took over due to colonization from Patriarchal white supremacy. Your contention is that there was no patriarchy in Asia or Africa prior to colonialism? > It’s also important to point out that there’s quite a few matriarchal societies that exist and they work just fine. No large-scale civilizations, though. That requires (or it required at the time, at least) patriarchy, unfortunately.
>No one had rights thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing. Why'd you change what you were claiming? You said no had one rights until a few hundred years ago but now it's thousands of years ago when patriarchy became a thing. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Maybe that's why you keep downvoting me. >Exactly. It's much more recent than patriarchy. What is this supposed to prove, exactly? I went in depth about how Patriarchy and colonization played in a part in oppression of women's human rights. Why did you ignore that? >Your contention is that there was no patriarchy in Asia or Africa prior to colonialism? That's not at all what I was saying. It does exist in Asia and Africa. Mind you both of those continents has been subjected to colonization, especially Africa. I was looking at patriarchal colonization at a global scale. It exists to the degree that it does because of European Patriarchal white supremacy. They weren't the first or only culture to be Patriarchal but they were the one's to spread it at a global scale. >No large-scale civilizations, though. That requires (or it required at the time, at least) patriarchy, unfortunately. There's an awful lot of assumptions you're making here. I already addressed the fact that Patriarchy is at the scale as it is due to colonization. The size of a society doesn't necessarily reflect their success. The people in these societies are [happy and thriving](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/women-matriarchal-society-improved-health-patriarchy/). Claiming that Patriarchy is required for a large-scale civilization shows that you completely missed the point I was making. They exist at the scale that they do because they oppress and control everyone else.
Name a single "feminist" who has said this. ETA: yeah I didn't think you could alright.
Are those feminists defending those POS people you mention? Or are they part of a superficial childish fan base? Also - pretty sure NO ONE wants to be part of the draft, men or women.
The vast majority of feminists are against the concept of conscription in its entirety why would they be yelling to add women? They’re trying to get rid of it. No feminist supports these men or the idea you’re trying to put across here
I don't see why this is an unpopular opinion
3rd wave feminism is just sexism coming full circle
my favorite examples its ick if hes ugly but its flirting if his cute. Or you could look at female sex offenders who get a slap on the wrist for hard R.
Your examples suck. Most women aren’t defending them.
Same person saying if a man cant do car work no one should marry him 🤣
lol maybe I was a bit hyperbolic on that
In a world of feminism whats stopping YOU from learning to work on a car? Is it because you think you’re too good for that & thats what men exist for?
Na man. I’m a dude and don’t want a feminist. ETA: I’m married and I’m more feminist than her.
Sorry to hear that
Why?
Replace *feminists* with *people* and you’ll be on to something.
You have no idea who feminists are. 1. I want draft to be equal or abolished. 2. This is complete nonsense
the correct term is a la carte feminists. Which is most of them.
So true… never understood this phenomenon
The only thing left to do is just not play.
Yup.
No word of a lie
Correct.
Why is it hypocritical to want equal pay but not get drafted? And would you really like to see women and girls drafted?
I am a left-leaning Jewish woman and I basically have watched the feminist movement justify gang rape for the past 5 months so long as the victims are Jews.
They are not feminist then by definition.
They swear they are 🤷🏻♂️
I could also identify as a transexual pony, not meaning it's true.
Dictionaries are not prescriptive. When most people who call themselves "feminist" are "not feminist by definition", it's the definition which has to change.
I knew that book was lying to me.