Categories
a voice for men actual activism antifeminism feminism homophobia internal debate misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam rapey reactionary bullshit

MRAs would rather complain about “male disposability” than work to enable women to serve in combat

Men’s Rights Activists regularly complain that it is mostly men who serve in the armed forces, and that it is mostly male soldiers who are killed and injured in service to their country in wartime. MRAs also complain that, in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.

MRAs love to cite the dominance of men in the armed forces as a prime example of what they call “male disposability,” and somehow manage to blame feminists for it all.

But it’s not feminists who are trying to keep women from becoming soldiers, or serving in combat. While some MRAs support the idea of women serving in the army, and having to register for the draft the same as men do, many others scoff at the very notion of women as soldiers, mocking their alleged female “weakness” and in some cases denigrating the service of women now in the armed forces as being equivalent to attending “day care camp.” (Not exactly.) These MRAs may complain that men bear the brunt of the costs of war. But they don’t actually want women to serve.

Not that it makes much of a difference, because the MRAs who do supposedly want women to share the same responsibilities as men aren’t doing shit about it. You know who is? Feminists. The National Organization for Women, while opposing the draft, has long argued that if registration is required of men, it should also be required of women. NOW has also opposed the ban on female soliders serving in combat. (Not that it’s easy to draw a clear line between combat and non-combat positions on the contemporary battlefields.)

Meanwhile, a group called the Molly Pitcher Project, made up of University of Virginia law students and headed by feminist law professor Anne Coughlin, is assisting two female soldiers who are now suing the Pentagon in an attempt to lift the combat ban.

Do you want to know who is opposing them – aside from the Pentagon’s lawyers? Take a look at some of the comments posted in response to a Los Angeles Times article on the lawsuit. Note: The quotes below are pretty egregious; some deal with military rape in a really offensive way. (Thanks to Pecunium for pointing me to them.)

These aren’t “cherry-picked” from hundreds of comments; these are the bulk of the comments that were left on the article.

Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.

If MRAs, or at least some of them, truly want a world in which men and women share equally in the responsibilities of military service (and both have equal opportunties for military leadership), they need to challenge the misogynists — within their movement and without — who argue that women simply aren’t fit for the battlefield. And they need to support the feminists who are actually trying to make a difference — instead of standing on the sidelines crying foul.

I don’t hold out much hope that this will ever happen. MRAs are much too enamored with their fantasies of male martyrhood.

317 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Molly Moon
Molly Moon
9 years ago
Reply to  Nanasha

Nanasha-

It would be friggin awesome if we could fight our wars with robots, if only for the stock footage that would make indie sci-fi AWESOME, but if we’re just using robots then why bother doing it irl at all? Wouldn’t it be way cheaper to play call of duty or something?

This is one of the reasons why predator drones bother me. It’s not sporting, even if they always killed the bad guy and not innocent civilians. Like bringing a nuke to a knife fight.

Um, or a predator drone to a human fight. I guess.

That doesn’t exactly articulate my problem. There’s something there about relative risk, too.

I think my main point is you can’t have wars without death.

Shaenon
9 years ago

My sympathy for a sobbing father is limited if the reason he’s sobbing is that he’s not allowed to punch his toddler in the face anymore.

Nanasha
Nanasha
9 years ago

@Molly Moon- Well, maybe the idea is that whoever runs out of resources first could win.

There’s a disturbing episode of Kino No Tabi about two countries that were always at war for many many years and that eventually they decided upon a “creative” way to wage war that basically becomes more twisted….

Jessay (@jessay)
9 years ago

Oh that’s right. I forgot. Women refuse to spill or shed blood for men.

You do realize that your mother shed quite a bit of blood giving birth to you, right? Just saying.

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
9 years ago
Reply to  Nanasha

Nanasha-
Haha holy crap that’s some screwed up shit. I wish I could say I’d be shocked if people ever really advocated for something like that, but, well, you know. MRAs.

Resources would work, too. Some kind of (risk of) sacrifice is necessary, though. I’m almost sure of it. I’ve thought about this before and I couldn’t figure out a way to remove sacrifice from war and have it be realistic. I hope someone proves me wrong though.

VoIP
VoIP
9 years ago

Oh that’s right. I forgot. Women refuse to spill or shed blood for men.

Guess what?

MertvayaRuka
MertvayaRuka
9 years ago

VoIP, wait for it, I’m sure one of them will start blabbering about Russian women in combat being a product of the evils of SOSHULISM.

Ithiliana
9 years ago

@Katz: Plato also thought slavery was a natural part of society, so the ‘best’ rulers (male or female) would be served by “slaves” (both men and women) because somebody had to do the shitwork for those philosophers/rulers.

Ithiliana
9 years ago

@Licking Troll: You know, if “male disposability” were an important sociological concept, there would be more than two hits on the biggest Social Sciences index, wouldn’t there:

1.
Academic Journal
REDUNDANCY AND FEMALE EMPLOYMENT.Full Text Available
By: Wood, Stephen. Sociological Review, Nov81, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p649-683, 35p; DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.ep5464581
Subjects: WOMEN — Employment; WOMEN employees; ACQUIESCENCE (Psychology); MALE employees; SOCIAL sciences; Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities; BINARY principle (Linguistics)
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text
Add to folder Cited References: (28) Times Cited in this Database: (1)
PDF Full Text (2.4MB)

2.
Book
Myth of male power: why men are the disposable sexDetail Only Available
By: Farrell, Warren. Myth of male power: why men are the disposable sex, 2001, 446p
Subjects: MEN’S studies; MAN-WOMAN relationships; MEN; MEN’S movement; PATRIARCHY; PSYCHOLOGY; SEXISM; WOMEN; SEX role
Database: SocINDEX with Full Text

Clearly, Warren Farrell is wanking hard trying to convince people of the disposability of the male sex, but sociology as a whole ain’t buying it.

The TITANIC thing has been debunked half a dozen times on this very blog! if I can find the discussion I’ll link for you, and you can educate yourself.

Ithiliana
9 years ago

@Licking Troll: here you go, two seconds search of manboobz:

http://manboobz.com/2012/04/15/a-titanic-mistake-new-research-sinks-the-women-and-children-first-myth/

Now if you’d like to talk about “disposability” (though I think that term sucks raw eggs) of men of color, or poor men, etc., then we MIGHT be able to talk.

But I doubt your tongue or brain can reach that far.

Ithiliana
9 years ago

@TrollDragonsarehere: Pro tip from English teacher.

If you have to continually explain what you “meant,” and your explanation does not jibe with what you wrote, then the problem is probably in you and not your audience.

Jodi
Jodi
9 years ago

Unfortunately, even wars fought by robots are going to be fought on someone’s home soil…people (not to mention animals) are stlll going to be hurt and/or killed. Unless….how about robot wars on the moon??

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

I am in no way trivializing PTSD, that certainly isnt my intention, I have only respect for our soldiers, please dont twist my words. Neither did I say veterans must stay out of society, just that reintegration was necessary due to the differences in mindset.

I’ll be sure to tell my father that some internet cowboy who knows fuckall thinks he’s not fit for society. I’ll ask how his “reintegration” has been going. Fuck you.

At least the VA is more interested in treating his PTSD now (and they believe it’s a thing) than they were 40 years ago.

Falconer
Falconer
9 years ago

“…or serious commentary on fandom things (eg LoTR).”
Just not Ancient Aliens, eh?

Why are you bringing up Ancient Aliens, all of a sudden? Did I miss something?

You didn’t ask, but I’ll tell you anyway my thoughts on Ancient Aliens: Fucking bullshit. They also tend to be used to explain the ambitious undertakings of brown people. Pyramids? Ziggurats? The Nazca lines? The Easter Island statues? Obviously those couldn’t have been made by brown people, in the estimations of really douche-y white people. About the only things Ancient Aliens have been used to explain that white people actually did are Stonehenge and similar standing stones. Also it assumes we couldn’t have figured out agriculture and the wheel on our own, we got uplifted.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

Jessay – MRA’s have long since dismissed the work, risk and pain associated with pregnancy and childbirth. I believe it was NWO himself who said that it was no different than taking a shit. It’s just so much less important than real work, like fixing milking machines, you know?

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

Y’know Dragons, an uncharitable individual might be inclined to suspect that you’re not writing to be understood at all. That you’re being purposely vague and misleading, omitting things that would clarify your point in order to give yourself an excuse to lord your imagined superiority over those who “misread” you.

But maybe I’m giving you too much credit. It’s possible you’re just backpedaling when you get called on your shit. Oh sorry, I mean when people make “inferences”.

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
9 years ago
Reply to  Jodi

Jodi-

Oh yeah I definitely was envisioning flying robots at least. If they’re big/numerous/have nukes/etc then they should probably leave atmo.

Most wars are fought over land; what’s the point if you destroy what you’re fighting over, right?

ithiliana
9 years ago

I’ve read some pretty convincing speculation that some of the biggest wars to come will be fought over potable water which is not an infinitely renewable resource…

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
9 years ago
Reply to  ithiliana

Not if this thingy (or similar) starts getting mass produced, hopefully.

GingerSnaps
GingerSnaps
9 years ago

The babies = shitting thing doesn’t work,obviously. the size of the rectum and the anal sphincter in relation to the size of the bowel movement is pretty close, whereas the female body has to expand considerably to accommodate passing a child through the birth canal.

Obviously?

Derpwood
Derpwood
9 years ago

Gingersnaps,

Oh, yeah, that’s right. Those miserable, lazy men only stretch their sphincters oh so much. Right? RIGHT? MISANDRY1!!1

There, I just made NWO’s next comment for him.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
9 years ago

Drone warfare makes sense as long as one side has drones and the other hasn’t. Once both sides have drones the inevitable conclusion is that the drones ought to be sicked on the civilian populace. As long as you have soldiers fighting soldiers, at some point the death toll will cause one side to give up the fight. If the fight is purely economic (drones on drones) then whoever has less resources automatically loses because they can’t make the other country quit because of lost will to fight. Ergo they will need to ‘think outside the box’ and refuse to fight by the purely economic warfare rules to have a shot to win, and they will necessarily thus target civilians.

Mind Control Beams
Mind Control Beams
9 years ago

“Obviously?”

You would think so. However, as NWO has graciously enlightened us, they are both biological functions and therefore they are completely equivalent. At least, when it is convenient for him that they be.

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
9 years ago

There’s FEMALES! And they’re LAWYERING! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

Female lawyers make for good TV though

Pecunium
9 years ago

Nanasha: I’d like it if the Japanese could finally perfect making mech drones to send to war that could be remotely controlled by actual people- then we’d be able to leave all this gendered nonsense behind (and the casualties because dying in combat is bad!).

WTF? I don’t even know where to start “The Japanese”?!???@????? Why not the US, or the Canadians? Or the…?

And what you just described is tantamount to recreating colonial imperialism; because that shit is going to cost money, and eat resources. Only rich countries will be able to do it… and poor ones will have to suck it up.

As to the dying in combat… yes, combat deaths are shitty. So are industrial accidents, car crashes, random shootings, falling off a hiking trail, etc..

1 5 6 7 8 9 13
%d bloggers like this: