I mean, you're blatantly wrong there - and we can just look at things like the court system and their bias against men and fathers, the DRAFT itself before this lawsuit, the fact that rape laws themselves (especially in places like the UK) are defined against men and the fact that if the police are called for domestic violence that a woman is perpetrating, the man is frequently the one arrested and plenty more. Oh, or the fact that the gender gap in prison sentencing for the same crime is vastly higher than the racial gap, the gap in work place deaths, the disparity in both acceptance into and graduation from schools, the fact that the way young men and women act the man is diagnosed with a problem (or punished) for existing (fiddling with things is what young men do, it doesn't mean they have adhd because they don't act like typical women in the classroom). Oh, also laws against genital mutilation.I'm noticing there isn't an argument against this ruling that can't also be used as an argument against the draft in general.
The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.
Liability, maybe I've seen studies about how it causes performance degradation in squads, but last I saw there was more research needed for unisex female squads. Unjust, nope - not as long as there are rights that come with the responsibility of fighting for your country against your will that are given for free to another group. Your augment, when given a "subtle" shift, would be very racist - and one premise and conclusion I also disagree with. Much like how I disagree with the notion that everyone knows that men should always die first.Because women are a liability on the battlefield. Also, as long as there are able-bodied men, it is unjust to draft women.
Thoughts? Okay, it shouldn't be like that, but if it happens everyone will deal it with it, 'done. (IMO a better question is if this is right.)
It is a de-railer, but it's also not relevant to this conversation.It's a de-railer to bring this up, but it's still relevant to the conversation here. What's a "woman?" What a "man?"
More get-out-of-thinking-free fallacies. As if transgendered individuals don't also receive targeted discrimination. That has nothing to do whatsoever with feminism or toxic masculinity, you're just lumping everything you dislike together.Any man can be a woman, so "feminism" is pointless. Any woman can be a man, so "toxic masculinity" is a moot point.
A draft could be a lot of things. It could be actually seeing combat, or support roles like medic, or working drones like you said.I'll probably get some heat for this but bear with me for a second.
Here's the thing : if feminism is really about equal rights, then it is a great day for feminism. And if it isn't... Then it's not really worth pursuing.
The thing with rights is that it always comes with responsibilities. And the way I've come to learn about feminism is that there's quite some push in areas where women are either behind or perceived behind, they lobby hard to even up. These are other discussions and heavily debated ones. But in other fields - and this is one of them - there's open discrimination for no other reason than that this was always the case
I'm also reminded of the first South Park movie. In it there's a war. And the American side just makes sure that all the afro Americans are in the front lines (even strapped to the tanks).it's basic discrimination, and it's comedy because it's so over the top. But at the same time : why are it always boys and men who are sent out to do the dangerous stuff? It's not like soldiers WANT to be in a war zone, and the politicians who start wars are never in the front lines.
And .. I hope I'm not too cynical, but perhaps the risk of women dying on the battlefield will make for some stronger anti war lobbying.
(but in a final note : exactly which battlefield? Nowadays wars are done by using drones and airstrikes. What was called the second Iraqi war was just the USA slaughtering up the place. It was so uneven you had more casualties from friendly fire than from the enemy)
Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.Only the ones who organize to commit to the destruction of their own race.
The lawsuit was that it is unconstitutional to draft males but not women. So this gives them a choice to either remove the draft altogether for males or draft women along with males. Likely it seems congress doesn’t want to get rid of the draft.Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.
As for the topic, men's rights groups are just shit and unnecessary and this lawsuit further cements that notion. Instead of doing something good, like fighting to completely remove the draft, they instead decide to throw women under the bus.
Found the incel/mgtow lol!Women are vastly inferior to men. It's very dangerous to have the equality mindset.
... And this new wave of women's rights advocates are saints right? Don't take sides. It's hypocritical.Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.
As for the topic, men's rights groups are just shit and unnecessary and this lawsuit further cements that notion. Instead of doing something good, like fighting to completely remove the draft, they instead decide to throw women under the bus.
The thing is, this lawsuit is just an example of narrowminded and short-term thinking. Trying to set up a lawsuit against the government is an attempt to get instant results, which of course there's going to be no way to remove the draft with instant results. They could have set up rallies, spread information showing that the draft is no longer necessary, etc. they could have taken time to spread awareness and made this more about removing an unnecessary system instead of trying to gain instant results.The lawsuit was that it is unconstitutional to draft males but not women. So this gives them a choice to either remove the draft altogether for males or draft women along with males. Likely it seems congress doesn’t want to get rid of the draft.
So the original lawsuit could be used as a way to remove draft all together. Perhaps if many women protest being drafted, they may have to remove the draft for males as a result for the sake of fairness.
Expect these Men's Rights groups aren't actually doing anything helpful for men. They could invest time, money, resources, and awareness for research into men's mental health. This is an issue that isn't taken seriously and could be linked to why young men have such a high rate of suicide. There are countless real issues involving men that they could actually be dealing with instead of throwing women under the bus at any given opportunity.... And this new wave of women's rights advocates are saints right? Don't take sides. It's hypocritical.
Found the incel/mgtow lol!
They have protested the draft for decades. It’s why we even have a voluntary army in the first place.The thing is, this lawsuit is just an example of narrowminded and short-term thinking. Trying to set up a lawsuit against the government is an attempt to get instant results, which of course there's going to be no way to remove the draft with instant results. They could have set up rallies, spread information showing that the draft is no longer necessary, etc. they could have taken time to spread awareness and made this more about removing an unnecessary system instead of trying to gain instant results.
Expect these Men's Rights groups aren't actually doing anything helpful for men. They could invest time, money, resources, and awareness for research into men's mental health. This is an issue that isn't taken seriously and could be linked to why young men have such a high rate of suicide. There are countless real issues involving men that they could actually be dealing with instead of throwing women under the bus at any given opportunity.