Award winning feminist filmmaker began to doubt her beliefs while making "The Red Pill"… now funding
151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swilly;48991748]It didn't and still doesn't until a recent US court case gets to the Supreme Court.
It took 50 years after Veitnam for a woman to challenge the use of the Draft. Meanwhile the only courtcases we've seen haven't been about women enlisting or joining active service, its about climbing the command chain. Two of the most important cases of for American Service women were about, 'How can I get promoted and get a bigger check'.
Don't ever say that shit again. If women were so keen on making an equal territory, it should not have taken nearly a century from the start of feminism to now, to fix the fucking draft.[/QUOTE]
Some people believe that feminism started in the suffrage movement, in which case it's taken 150 years for the draft to be addressed rather than nearly a century.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48990307]Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media[/QUOTE]
That's nice and all, but whats your opinion on the article?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989691]I would hope so - I'd have to see the movie to make any judgments on it, but from what I've read it doesn't seem that way to me.
I'll stop making judgments until I know more about the actual film - should've done that in the first place.[/QUOTE]
In order for male to get a job on a federal level they must have a selective serve number, If they don't they will not be allowed to apply. Men can also be charged with a federal offence and serve jail time and face a fine for not signin up. Men who immigrated to the US must sign up for the draft or they can never become a naturalized US citizen.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48990307]Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media[/QUOTE]
I'm glad I'm not the one noticing Breitbart as a source, isn't it supposed to be banned? I've seen so many people using it recently.
[QUOTE=discofex;48991980]In order for male to get a job on a federal level they must have a selective serve number, If they don't they will not be allowed to apply. Men can also be charged with a federal offence and serve jail time and face a fine for not signin up. Men who immigrated to the US must sign up for the draft or they can never become a naturalized US citizen.[/QUOTE]
I have never seen a feminist group address the draft in any serious way. Hell, not even feminists places like Scandinavia and Israel touch it.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48991761]Some people believe that feminism started in the suffrage movement, in which case it's taken 150 years for the draft to be addressed rather than nearly a century.[/QUOTE]
The original suffragettes shamed men into fighting in ww1.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48992038]I'm glad I'm not the one noticing Breitbart as a source, isn't it supposed to be banned? I've seen so many people using it recently.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't say anything about it being banned, just that it's discouraged.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48988939]the way you don't do that is to make a counter-movement and say "FEMINISM BAD" and start tying yourself to abusive and blatantly inequal models of "good relationships."[/QUOTE]
Actual Men's Rights activists (ie not the vocal minority of sensationalistic ones, which applies to feminists too) don't hate feminism or women, they're just speaking for obvious, statistical examples of gender inequality that are often ignored or even shunned by larger society. Like any respectful rights group, the goal is to protect men, not to attack women.
Yes, men have been dominant for thousands of years, but the MRA movement only concerns current issues in the current state of the world, which is why they don't call themselves Masculists (or the shittily-memed "Menenist"). Feminism has a much broader scope than the MRA movement, but it's always blown out of proportion as if it's a genuine full on war between men and women.
---------------
Ignoring all that, it looks like a damn good documentary either way. As long as they don't cheese it up too much like they did with the trailer it could be really enthralling just for the story of that ideological transition of the director.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989652]It's not one article. I was heavily into /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for almost a year.
It's not a complex group, either. The very basics of their complaints are genuine and I recognize that and I entirely suppor those few basic complaints - but it's an echo chamber that breeds contempt for women and has gotten increasingly radicalized over time.
Here's a couple comments lifted straight from the TRP thread on this documentary:
"Why would you want to support anything a feminist is doing?"
"I don't give a shit that some dumb blonde bimbo wants to "enlighten" herself."[/QUOTE]
Yeah man, anonymous reddit posters are totally the activists behind this movement!
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989691]I would hope so - I'd have to see the movie to make any judgments on it, but from what I've read it doesn't seem that way to me.
I'll stop making judgments until I know more about the actual film - should've done that in the first place.[/QUOTE]
This is why I like you Isak. You're not afraid to change your viewpoint, even slightly, when new evidence comes up. That's way better than 90% of Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48990307]Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media[/QUOTE]
Well they're often the only source that gives stories like these the attention they deserved. Also, Huffington Post is allowed here, so if this is the right equivalent, shouldn't HuffPo be a "banned source"?
I'd much rather have the ability to post substantiated content from wherever I find it.
Well it's because you know what women want? More.
Of whatever it is, women's "rights" pretty sure they can do anything anyone else can.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989533]the term "patriarchy" is not "men in a good light."
it's a male-centric society. that's it. men can be (and a majority are) good people, nobody is arguing that all men are evil.
Question - feminists fought (and still fight) for women to serve in wars. How does this effect men? It lowers the death rate of men in wartime. Whoa! Now men are benefiting from feminist actions! Women want that equal opportunity to get shot in the face, but they don't care about men at all, not a bit. Even though that by pushing for equality in the military, men benefit by dying less and women actually benefit less because they now get to die more.
Painting it as "men v. women" is just dishonest - if you do that, you come to conclusions like "women just want to die more!" rather than "women want an opportunity to be equal to men even in environments where they are at a far higher risk to die or be injured." [/QUOTE]
Men have to sign away their bodily autonomy or be thrown in prison. Women get a choice. Selective Service makes a big difference. At this moment, women cannot be drafted. Only men.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989533]
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I'm glad to see that the call for having academic debates and discussions about men's issues in the context of feminism and gender equality is being taken seriously. Wait - let's just get aggressive and angry about it and shout eachother out instead of figuring out how we can bring these issues to greater light with the massive support environment that already exists in the feminist movement, instead of pitting men and women against eachother for no reason.[/QUOTE]
Says the one who just shouts "BIOTRUTHS" when his views are challenged.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48991748]It didn't and still doesn't until a recent US court case gets to the Supreme Court.
It took 50 years after Veitnam for a woman to challenge the use of the Draft. Meanwhile the only courtcases we've seen haven't been about women enlisting or joining active service, its about climbing the command chain. Two of the most important cases of for American Service women were about, 'How can I get promoted and get a bigger check'.
Don't ever say that shit again. If women were so keen on making an equal territory, it should not have taken nearly a century from the start of feminism to now, to fix the fucking draft.[/QUOTE]
Yes, no individual forked out the money for a court case so feminists collectively are clearly not actually interested in equality. It couldn't have anything to do with the state's lack of interest in equality, owing to things like the world wars, and our since complete switch to a volunteer army where a woman's advancement is the most apparent issue. Got any more gems?
Choosing to whine about this is particularly ironic and petty since it's a fine example of ruling patriarchal ideals in action, ones that hurt men just as much as women. Men are bodies to be thrown at the front, and women work the home front and shit out more soldiers for the (overtly masculine) state.
You're basically saying this: Unless feminists, especially before the 60s, convinced the government and a war-minded patriotic silent majority to [i]not [/i] treat men this way, rather than spend their movement's resources on more blatant issues that stare you in the face like strict gender roles (something you can actually lobby the government as [i]having an interest in changing[/i]) they do not actually believe in equality.
Attempting to change draft laws would be seen as a minority of feminists trying to change values men don't care about and the state has long worked under, during a time when the world is less than stable and the populace is very right wing. It'd just be dismissed as left idealism, but apparently now it's proof that feminism isn't actually for equality, and thus MRAs are needed.
Pretty much that is the discussion of sexism in the 21st century on the Internet in a nutshell right there.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48993030]Men have to sign away their bodily autonomy or be thrown in prison. Women get a choice. Selective Service makes a big difference. At this moment, women cannot be drafted. Only men.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I am vehemently opposed to selective service. I'm not calling for women to be drafted, too - I want selective service and the draft to be done away with entirely. That is an example of inequalities that face men that should be worked on, and can be worked on, entirely within the context of the already-existing gender equality movement.
Feminists still do fight for the right to fight in wars. Not very long ago, they were entirely prohibited from the field. Drafting is unfair, there's no question there - the solution is to get rid of drafting and suddenly men and women in the military are on much closer ground.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=discofex;48991980]In order for male to get a job on a federal level they must have a selective serve number, If they don't they will not be allowed to apply. Men can also be charged with a federal offence and serve jail time and face a fine for not signin up. Men who immigrated to the US must sign up for the draft or they can never become a naturalized US citizen.[/QUOTE]
So let's fight to get rid of selective service. Most feminists hold that opinion - because feminism and Vietnam anti-war protests became intertwined during and after the Vietnam war.
Hell, the National Organization for Women's official stance on selective service and the draft is that they oppose it for both men and women. They directly state "We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women."
It is a very real issue of gender discrimination - but TRP/MRA's response to it is exactly the same as pretty much every feminist's response. Just because feminists don't say "we need to get rid of selective service [i]for the benefit of men[/i]" doesn't mean that they don't want to get rid of it [i]for the benefit of everyone.[/i]
[QUOTE=Conscript;48993346]Yes, no individual forked out the money for a court case so feminists collectively are clearly not actually interested in equality. It couldn't have anything to do with the state's lack of interest in equality, owing to things like the world wars, and our since complete switch to a volunteer army where a woman's advancement is the most apparent issue. Got any more gems?
Choosing to whine about this is particularly ironic and petty since it's a fine example of ruling patriarchal ideals in action, ones that hurt men just as much as women. Men are bodies to be thrown at the front, and women work the home front and shit out more soldiers for the (overtly masculine) state.
You're basically saying this: Unless feminists, especially before the 60s, convinced the government and a war-minded patriotic silent majority to [i]not [/i] treat men this way, rather than spend their movement's resources on more blatant issues that stare you in the face like strict gender roles (something you can actually lobby the government as [i]having an interest in changing[/i]) they do not actually believe in equality.
Attempting to change draft laws would be seen as a minority of feminists trying to change values men don't care about and the state has long worked under, during a time when the world is less than stable and the populace is very right wing. It'd just be dismissed as left idealism, but apparently now it's proof that feminism isn't actually for equality, and thus MRAs are needed.
Pretty much that is the discussion of sexism in the 21st century on the Internet in a nutshell right there.[/QUOTE]
I never said MRAs are needed. I don't give a fuck about MRAs or Feminists, I care about actual fucking equality and you can sit there and act like I'm throwing all of feminism under the bus but if they were so keen on making things equal they should've challenged and changed the culture to prove that women can be out there as well much sooner.
It also further speaks towards their inability to accept that in a truely equal society, half the labor force involved in construction, sanitation, fabrication should be female. A nation represents both genders, both genders should take part in protecting it.
But no, of course, leftist idealism is the perfect scapegoat for "We didn't want to." Because they didn't.
[QUOTE=Venom Snake;48992706]. Also, Huffington Post is allowed here, so if this is the right equivalent, shouldn't HuffPo be a "banned source"?
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mourn it's loss overly long.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48993864]Hell, the National Organization for Women's official stance on selective service and the draft is that they oppose it for both men and women. They directly state "We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women."
It is a very real issue of gender discrimination - but TRP/MRA's response to it is exactly the same as pretty much every feminist's response. Just because feminists don't say "we need to get rid of selective service [i]for the benefit of men[/i]" doesn't mean that they don't want to get rid of it [i]for the benefit of everyone.[/i][/QUOTE]
Okay, that's their public stance, yeah. That's what they say so that they can defend themselves by claiming that they're not ignoring it, or "on your side". But you'll never see them actually push it. It will never be a focus, When they're sitting in their comfort zone going on about how women don't make enough money and how people with a vagina aren't treated the same as people with a penis, despite having absolutely NO qualms about treating men differently than women in their own interactions, they'll never stop and turn the conversation into fighting the draft.
It will never be a serious feminist issue because they'll only talk about it and concede the point if they feel morally threatened. Otherwise they'll ignore it in favor of railing against the patriarchy and move on to the issues they feel threaten them, personally.
And you know the best part? The second we're thrown back into a real war, you can bet your pretty pink panties that they'll flip on the issue so hard they'll make the [url=http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i]women who threw chicken feathers at men to shame those who didn't enlist[/url] look like angels. Why? Because they're selfish, and they've always been selfish, and you'll never see more than a small fringe group support something outside of their comfort zone that doesn't directly support themselves. Men as a gender have always had inherent responsibilities tied to their "privilege" that feminists have no real interest in taking on. Oh, they'll say they want it, they're fine with SAYING that they want women to enlisted into the military, same as men are, until it becomes a realistic possibility. The second there's any real threat you can bet your ass the majority of these feminists will turn to their male counterparts and SHAME them for not throwing their lives in the line of fire to protect them. The biggest difference now? They'll probably call themselves "empowered" for doing so.
And nothing you've said there counters my belief of that in the slightest, they're fine with abolishing the draft? Yeah, because that doesn't force them to actually help. All it does is hinder the governments ability to force men into service, something they'll simply shame them into doing anyways. Come back to me when they sign up for selective service and fight to abolish any limitations on women in armed combat, and demand a gender quota in the armed forces during wartime. Individually, they might verbally support it, as a whole? Not a fucking chance.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48994390]Okay, that's their public stance, yeah. That's what they say so that they can defend themselves by claiming that they're not ignoring it, or "on your side". But you'll never see them actually push it. It will never be a focus, When they're sitting in their comfort zone going on about how women don't make enough money and how people with a vagina aren't treated the same as people with a penis, despite having absolutely NO qualms about treating men differently than women in their own interactions, they'll never stop and turn the conversation into fighting the draft.
It will never be a serious feminist issue because they'll only talk about it and concede the point if they feel morally threatened. Otherwise they'll ignore it in favor of railing against the patriarchy and move on to the issues they feel threaten them, personally.
And you know the best part? The second we're thrown back into a real war, you can bet your pretty pink panties that they'll flip on the issue so hard they'll make the [url=http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i]women who threw chicken feathers at men to shame those who didn't enlist[/url] look like angels. Why? Because they're selfish, and they've always been selfish, and you'll never see more than a small fringe group support something outside of their comfort zone that doesn't directly support themselves. Men as a gender have always had inherent responsibilities tied to their "privilege" that feminists have no real interest in taking on. Oh, they'll say they want it, they're fine with SAYING that they want women to enlisted into the military, same as men are, until it becomes a realistic possibility. The second there's any real threat you can bet your ass the majority of these feminists will turn to their male counterparts and SHAME them for not throwing their lives in the line of fire to protect them. The biggest difference now? They'll probably call themselves "empowered" for doing so.
And nothing you've said there counters my belief of that in the slightest, they're fine with abolishing the draft? Yeah, because that doesn't force them to actually help. All it does is hinder the governments ability to force men into service, something they'll simply shame them into doing anyways. Come back to me when they sign up for selective service and fight to abolish any limitations on women in armed combat, and demand a gender quota in the armed forces during wartime. Individually, they might verbally support it, as a whole? Not a fucking chance.[/QUOTE]
This reads like a conspiracy theory
I think you've mixed up the majority of feminists and the small fringe group of extremists bud
[QUOTE=KillRay;48994434]This reads like a conspiracy theory
I think you've mixed up the majority of feminists and the small fringe group of extremists bud[/QUOTE]
The majority of feminists have no real interest in these issues, I'm just looking at history, which unless those issues are tackled will repeat itself. I don't believe that to be delusional, do you?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48993864]Which is why I am vehemently opposed to selective service. I'm not calling for women to be drafted, too - I want selective service and the draft to be done away with entirely. That is an example of inequalities that face men that should be worked on, and can be worked on, entirely within the context of the already-existing gender equality movement.[/QUOTE]
So instead of fighting for a woman's right to get drafted, you're "fighting" to abolish the draft and selective service entirely.
That's never going to happen, in fact you [I]know[/I] it's never going to happen, but the alternative is either saying "women should be drafted" or "women should not be drafted" and we both know either of those are things you don't want.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48994390]Okay, that's their public stance, yeah. That's what they say so that they can defend themselves by claiming that they're not ignoring it, or "on your side". But you'll never see them actually push it. It will never be a focus, When they're sitting in their comfort zone going on about how women don't make enough money and how people with a vagina aren't treated the same as people with a penis, despite having absolutely NO qualms about treating men differently than women in their own interactions, they'll never stop and turn the conversation into fighting the draft.
It will never be a serious feminist issue because they'll only talk about it and concede the point if they feel morally threatened. Otherwise they'll ignore it in favor of railing against the patriarchy and move on to the issues they feel threaten them, personally.
And you know the best part? The second we're thrown back into a real war, you can bet your pretty pink panties that they'll flip on the issue so hard they'll make the [url=http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i]women who threw chicken feathers at men to shame those who didn't enlist[/url] look like angels. Why? Because they're selfish, and they've always been selfish, and you'll never see more than a small fringe group support something outside of their comfort zone that doesn't directly support themselves. Men as a gender have always had inherent responsibilities tied to their "privilege" that feminists have no real interest in taking on. Oh, they'll say they want it, they're fine with SAYING that they want women to enlisted into the military, same as men are, until it becomes a realistic possibility. The second there's any real threat you can bet your ass the majority of these feminists will turn to their male counterparts and SHAME them for not throwing their lives in the line of fire to protect them. The biggest difference now? They'll probably call themselves "empowered" for doing so.
And nothing you've said there counters my belief of that in the slightest, they're fine with abolishing the draft? Yeah, because that doesn't force them to actually help. All it does is hinder the governments ability to force men into service, something they'll simply shame them into doing anyways. Come back to me when they sign up for selective service and fight to abolish any limitations on women in armed combat, and demand a gender quota in the armed forces during wartime. Individually, they might verbally support it, as a whole? Not a fucking chance.[/QUOTE]
You're basically saying that all feminists are equal to all other feminists, and that they're out to get you and shame you into fighting a war, and that's how all feminists will always act no matter what.
(I'm aware that I did this a few posts ago with TRP and I realize that was stupid now - I'm sure there is more complexity in that group, but not to quite to the same level as feminism, considering how small TRP is in comparison to feminism.)
I don't know why you seem to think that feminists [i]don't[/i] want to abolish limitations on women in armed combat. They absolutely do. They've been applauding women who are able to pass the marine qualifications. Thinking that feminists [i]want[/i] limitations on when women can fight in combat is purely misinformation - they clearly show that they want the opposite.
I also don't know why you're worried that feminists will not focus on that issue. Selective service isn't a major issue right now - there is no draft. If a draft appeared, I guarantee that you'd see the same thing we saw in the 70's - women fighting against the draft. Feminism has changed a [i]ton[/i] since World War I - equating suffragettes from nearly 100 years ago with gender equality activists now is dishonest.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48994466]So instead of fighting for a woman's right to get drafted, you're "fighting" to abolish the draft and selective service entirely.
That's never going to happen, in fact you [I]know[/I] it's never going to happen, but the alternative is either saying "women should be drafted" or "women should not be drafted" and we both know either of those are things you don't want.[/QUOTE]
[i]If getting rid of selective service is not an option[/i], which it absolutely is, I would prefer to see women and men drafted equally.
Don't assume my positions.
Yeah, they'll fight against the draft, that doesn't change anything, that doesn't change the fact that it will be men sent off to die in their place, draft or not. The draft is a free target that anyone can easily tell is obviously sexist, anyone can state they are against it as easily as saying "I don't support segregation". So why isn't it abolished? Partly because they don't care, and partly because it won't change anything.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48994460]The majority of feminists have no real interest in these issues, I'm just looking at history, which unless those issues are tackled will repeat itself. I don't believe that to be delusional, do you?[/QUOTE]
You're looking at 100-year-old history and ignoring 40-year-old history of women and feminists fighting the draft.
Whoa, look, [URL="https://www.rt.com/usa/310058-women-draft-usa-lawsuit/"]a lawsuit[/URL] by a [i]woman[/i] challenging that only men are drafted
Whoa, look, the[URL="http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/12/women-likely-have-register-draft-army-secretary-says.html"] Army Secretary already stated that women should be required to be drafted[/URL] so long as men are also required to be drafted!
Suffragettes from the 20s are not equatable to third-wave feminists from the 2010s.
A FEW feminists took that stance, it went no where, what does that tell you?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48994567]A FEW feminists took that stance, it went no where, what does that tell you?[/QUOTE]
Second-wave feminism was birthed from the civil rights movement of the 50's and the anti-war protests of the 60's. They adopted the same types of protest used by both of those social movements, and started in the 60's alongside the peace movement.
If you really think that a minority of feminists were anti-war, I don't know what to tell you. You need to read more on the history of feminism. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were a very prominent anti-war protest group that was one of the first in the country to start using the term "women's liberation."
You're conflating first-wave suffragette feminism with more modern second-wave (or even third-wave) feminism, which is dishonest. Major second-wave feminist authors, like Gloria Steinem, even criticized male circumcision alongside female genital mutilation. They were anti-war activists [i]and[/i] feminists. Trying to paint those two things as opposites is just demonstrably wrong in almost every way.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989533]
Question - feminists fought (and still fight) for women to serve in wars. How does this effect men? It lowers the death rate of men in wartime. Whoa! Now men are benefiting from feminist actions! Women want that equal opportunity to get shot in the face, but they don't care about men at all, not a bit. Even though that by pushing for equality in the military, men benefit by dying less and women actually benefit less because they now get to die more.
Painting it as "men v. women" is just dishonest - if you do that, you come to conclusions like "women just want to die more!" rather than "women want an opportunity to be equal to men even in environments where they are at a far higher risk to die or be injured."[/QUOTE]
I'm a tad late, but I need to make the point that mixed-sex military units actually take higher casualties for all sorts of reasons. One is that women aren't as strong as men (well, 99.99999%, as only 2 women became marines out of like 3-4 intakes of 100 and that was only after the army drastically lowered the requirements). The second is that men try to take care of the women in the field - and you'd doubtless say that this is because muh patriarchy but I'm sure anyone would try and go the extra mile to help a woman, even if it meant risking your own life. It is just how we are wired. The third reason is when you add women to an-all male group it changes the dynamic, you can complain about this all you want, but the only way it would not be an issue is if all women became men... and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Pushing for equality in the military is pants-on-head retarded. Sure it makes women feel just as strong as men YEAH GO WMYN... but then in an active warzone it becomes a terrible idea because they'll let the side down and cause more harm than good. Not to mention the headlines when one of them inevitably gets shot.
TLDR: Women in the military is a fucking bad idea for everyone involved, at least on the front lines. Rebut my two latter points but women are physically inferior to men and thus cannot perform in combat effectively. That point will always be true until we pump women full of roids to make them as physically capable as men.
Yes, they were anti-violence, anti-draft, anti-war, and a few of them detested things that affected men. They have NEVER as a whole actually fought to equalize male to female casualties. Anti-war is also an easy target, the simple stance, it has nothing to do with the responsibility, it's deflecting. "If men are sick of dying in war why even have war?" That's not helpful, that doesn't improve anyone's life. Conflict is inevitable, and as a whole they take the easy way out.
edit: @Isak
Also I like how something that only affects one gender some how magicly benefits both if it is abolished.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48989654]have you ever considered she might explain why she changed her views and they may have logical consistency that you never might have considered if you didn't watch it? you're right now completely dismissing her without knowing anything more than the title and her saying it changed her point of view. honestly a bit disturbing how easily you toss away someone's viewpoint[/QUOTE]
While complaining at every opportunity that [i]everyone else[/i] is "always" doing the same.
You can point to a few academics but there has never been a mass movement from feminists to end the draft/conscription of men or allow for the conscription of women.
Feminists don't care because its not a womens issue. Feminism is about advancing womens rights and thats how its always been. By its very name it takes the stance that men are the oppressor and that its women that need help.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.