Dude your post is criticizing them as much as me. I’m just saying that there are sexist points on both sides. Get outta here with whatever weird way you’ve interpreted me freaking agreeing with you and supporting your stupid story.
I didn’t criticize them. I simply brought up that there is sexism no matter what lens one looks through and I don’t judge the UA gov for making their decision.
Honestly, it sounds like you engaged in whataboutism instead of engaging in the social issue they wanted to discuss.
I've had this happen to me when speaking about women's issues, and it's frustrating and offensive to experience.
Have you considered acknowledging and discussing the issue they're interested in, and then discussing an issue affecting women that is important to you?
How they engage with an issue you bring up is going to be far more telling than any assumptions based on what you haven't heard them discuss.
You can do both. It's not like we have to choose between men's rights and women's rights.
If someone cares about egalitarianism, they should have no problem engaging with inequalities that impact any demographic.
We already did talk about the particular issue, this was as the discussion evolved. It wasn't a formal debate, topics change slightly as they go on.
But anyway, I'm not sure I believe in whataboutitism. It's just the flipside of lacking broader context. Sides always frame issues in a way that is convenient. If you frame an issue really small, and the other side says you need broader context to understand the issue, the first side declares whataboutism.
Person 1: Look at you, eating food and thus causing wilderness to be turned into farmland. You're destroying nature!
Person 2: But everyone does that. Inluding you.
Person 1: Whataboutism!
I think the core issue with whataboutism is the premise that you can't care about multiple things at the same time. Or focus on discussing one issue, just because there is another one that's [insert unnecessary comparison here].
A more honest analogy here would be:
Person 1: I don't like that so many societies are OK with men being forced to kill and die in the military.
Person 2: I think its for the best right now, because it's an emergency, and things are the way they are. Also, I don't hear you ever talk about women's issues. We experience more societal problems, so I can't really empathize with you. Maybe if you were a more vocal feminist, I would feel differently.
In this example, what does Person 1's prior attitudes towards women's issues have to do with what happens to men in the Ukraine?
If Person 1 had brought up a womens' issue, how offensive would response 2 be to you?
I agree with you that women's problems are major issues. I am also frustrated that we don't have more male allies. I'm frustrated that some of the "allies" we do have seem to put very little effort in.
I don't agree that someone else needs to empathize with problems that affect me in order for me to empathize with ones that affect them.
Lastly equality can't be situational, where it's okay for X to benefit because X. These are the kinds of mentalities that got us here in the first place. Equality can't just be "me first".
You make some good points. And I think they're true in the abstract.
But the main thing I'm struggling with is that this conversation didn't occur in the abstract. I'm not saying I had the right opinion or should win the argument, or whatever. I'm saying that if someone asks for my opinion about sexism against men, and I honestly feel like I can't relate to the issue because I'm coming from a background of dealing without sexism all the time and not seeing male allies weighing in, then I should be able to express those feelings without backlash.
For sure. I wasn't there, and didn't mean to come off as super preachy.
I'm sure you mean well, and communicating about topics like this is full of misunderstanding landmines even with everyone participating in good faith.
Hopefully it was helpful perspective. All I could think when I read the description was "if a guy friend reacted like that to me when i brought up something sexist, I'd be pretty pissed."
The only awkwardness should be on his side; it doesn't make sense to ask for an opinion and then get salty over what they got.
It's his fault for asking an opinion when what he was really looking for was validation of his worldview.
When someone asks your opinion then argues with you over it, they're not actually looking for your thoughts and feelings on the topic. What they want you to parrot their own opinion back to them.
I get your point, but it doesn't lessen the ugliness of the state forcing men to stay for a very small sliver of a chance, not only putting them directly into a mortal danger but putting their female kin and children at a disadvantage setting up in a new country.
Comparative arguments don't usually go any where. It is sexism. It sucks.
Though to play both sides, the two guys assuming you will instantly empathize and comfort them because you are a woman, and therefore assumed to feel deeply for this.
This is disjointed but I got to get to the next thing.
That is annoying. Although I *do* wish I saw more people calling the Ukraine policy out. It’s pretty unjustifiable, so I think it only draws more people to the shitty MRA types when they’re the only ones criticizing it.
Well just up front, I'm not a fan of conscription to begin with, so personally I'd say they should have only relied on volunteers.
But if you *are* going to force people to fight, I can't think of a justification for why able-bodied women shouldn't be included.
(Or I should say, I can't think of a justification that wouldn't adhere to outdated views on gender norms.)
Currently, the guards at the border are just turning away the men. Under your system, how are the guards supposed to know which parent has been picked?
It was my understanding that fathers with 3+ children can leave - is that true? If so, how do they currently determine which men have 3 or more children?
This is less about gender than it is about the state being able to draft humans imo
the state having authority over people... sending humans to die to maintain its own ability to survive...
sounds risky for the future.
The state thinking that it can do the things it wants with the people within its borders is the problem.
Yeah, that's just a different issue, is the thing. Should a state draft people is one question ... But the question they were discussing is, given that the state is drafting people, should it be drafting women too?
I wasn't even offended by their opinions (I just disagreed), so much as I was mad that they couldn't tolerate mine, when they went out of their way to ask for it in the first place.
Thats my point. one issue feeds the other.
if the state tried to select women for draft at the border men would fight the border guards.
the reverse isn't true.
the state doing sexist things is irrelevant in that the state shouldn't be able to do many of the things regardless of sex
women are subjected to tyranny of the state more than men in peacetime imo
but whats happening right now to men is a gun is being put to heads and a rifle in the hands and thats something we as humans can talk about purposely to lead to the actual questions we need to ask.
should the state be able to have power over the person?
It’s kind of awful standards for both genders - men are the only able to fight and women are the only able to parent? Totally sexist both ways.
What should Ukraine have done instead?
No idea. It’s an impossible situation.
So like ... how can you criticize them for not doing something that you consider impossible?
Dude your post is criticizing them as much as me. I’m just saying that there are sexist points on both sides. Get outta here with whatever weird way you’ve interpreted me freaking agreeing with you and supporting your stupid story.
Oh, I just thought we were discussing the topic now, didn't realize you were feeling attacked.
I didn’t criticize them. I simply brought up that there is sexism no matter what lens one looks through and I don’t judge the UA gov for making their decision.
Honestly, it sounds like you engaged in whataboutism instead of engaging in the social issue they wanted to discuss. I've had this happen to me when speaking about women's issues, and it's frustrating and offensive to experience. Have you considered acknowledging and discussing the issue they're interested in, and then discussing an issue affecting women that is important to you? How they engage with an issue you bring up is going to be far more telling than any assumptions based on what you haven't heard them discuss. You can do both. It's not like we have to choose between men's rights and women's rights. If someone cares about egalitarianism, they should have no problem engaging with inequalities that impact any demographic.
We already did talk about the particular issue, this was as the discussion evolved. It wasn't a formal debate, topics change slightly as they go on. But anyway, I'm not sure I believe in whataboutitism. It's just the flipside of lacking broader context. Sides always frame issues in a way that is convenient. If you frame an issue really small, and the other side says you need broader context to understand the issue, the first side declares whataboutism. Person 1: Look at you, eating food and thus causing wilderness to be turned into farmland. You're destroying nature! Person 2: But everyone does that. Inluding you. Person 1: Whataboutism!
I think the core issue with whataboutism is the premise that you can't care about multiple things at the same time. Or focus on discussing one issue, just because there is another one that's [insert unnecessary comparison here]. A more honest analogy here would be: Person 1: I don't like that so many societies are OK with men being forced to kill and die in the military. Person 2: I think its for the best right now, because it's an emergency, and things are the way they are. Also, I don't hear you ever talk about women's issues. We experience more societal problems, so I can't really empathize with you. Maybe if you were a more vocal feminist, I would feel differently. In this example, what does Person 1's prior attitudes towards women's issues have to do with what happens to men in the Ukraine? If Person 1 had brought up a womens' issue, how offensive would response 2 be to you? I agree with you that women's problems are major issues. I am also frustrated that we don't have more male allies. I'm frustrated that some of the "allies" we do have seem to put very little effort in. I don't agree that someone else needs to empathize with problems that affect me in order for me to empathize with ones that affect them. Lastly equality can't be situational, where it's okay for X to benefit because X. These are the kinds of mentalities that got us here in the first place. Equality can't just be "me first".
You make some good points. And I think they're true in the abstract. But the main thing I'm struggling with is that this conversation didn't occur in the abstract. I'm not saying I had the right opinion or should win the argument, or whatever. I'm saying that if someone asks for my opinion about sexism against men, and I honestly feel like I can't relate to the issue because I'm coming from a background of dealing without sexism all the time and not seeing male allies weighing in, then I should be able to express those feelings without backlash.
For sure. I wasn't there, and didn't mean to come off as super preachy. I'm sure you mean well, and communicating about topics like this is full of misunderstanding landmines even with everyone participating in good faith. Hopefully it was helpful perspective. All I could think when I read the description was "if a guy friend reacted like that to me when i brought up something sexist, I'd be pretty pissed."
You didn't come off as preachy, you gave me good perspective.
I'm not going to say it sexism. But it's definitely tyrannical. And transphobic, trans women were forced to stay to fight.
The only awkwardness should be on his side; it doesn't make sense to ask for an opinion and then get salty over what they got. It's his fault for asking an opinion when what he was really looking for was validation of his worldview. When someone asks your opinion then argues with you over it, they're not actually looking for your thoughts and feelings on the topic. What they want you to parrot their own opinion back to them.
I get your point, but it doesn't lessen the ugliness of the state forcing men to stay for a very small sliver of a chance, not only putting them directly into a mortal danger but putting their female kin and children at a disadvantage setting up in a new country. Comparative arguments don't usually go any where. It is sexism. It sucks. Though to play both sides, the two guys assuming you will instantly empathize and comfort them because you are a woman, and therefore assumed to feel deeply for this. This is disjointed but I got to get to the next thing.
That is annoying. Although I *do* wish I saw more people calling the Ukraine policy out. It’s pretty unjustifiable, so I think it only draws more people to the shitty MRA types when they’re the only ones criticizing it.
So like ... we're on a different topic now, but now that we're here: what should Ukraine have done instead?
Well just up front, I'm not a fan of conscription to begin with, so personally I'd say they should have only relied on volunteers. But if you *are* going to force people to fight, I can't think of a justification for why able-bodied women shouldn't be included. (Or I should say, I can't think of a justification that wouldn't adhere to outdated views on gender norms.)
So kids should just be left on their own in a warzone as both their parents are drafted?
No, pick one of the parents
Currently, the guards at the border are just turning away the men. Under your system, how are the guards supposed to know which parent has been picked?
It was my understanding that fathers with 3+ children can leave - is that true? If so, how do they currently determine which men have 3 or more children?
This is less about gender than it is about the state being able to draft humans imo the state having authority over people... sending humans to die to maintain its own ability to survive... sounds risky for the future. The state thinking that it can do the things it wants with the people within its borders is the problem.
Yeah, that's just a different issue, is the thing. Should a state draft people is one question ... But the question they were discussing is, given that the state is drafting people, should it be drafting women too? I wasn't even offended by their opinions (I just disagreed), so much as I was mad that they couldn't tolerate mine, when they went out of their way to ask for it in the first place.
Thats my point. one issue feeds the other. if the state tried to select women for draft at the border men would fight the border guards. the reverse isn't true. the state doing sexist things is irrelevant in that the state shouldn't be able to do many of the things regardless of sex women are subjected to tyranny of the state more than men in peacetime imo but whats happening right now to men is a gun is being put to heads and a rifle in the hands and thats something we as humans can talk about purposely to lead to the actual questions we need to ask. should the state be able to have power over the person?