I can't hear you.

[_EAllusion]

Here are some more oppressed women, subjugated and subordinated by the Patriarchy to their very core:



SO TRIGGERED.

- Doc

What about this picture tells us these women do not face systemic biases based on their perceived gender? You know, one form that cultural oppression takes is shaming and ridiculing women based on their appearance to reinforce their inferior nature and to dismiss the validity of their concerns. You aren't doing that here, right?

[_EAllusion]

People know this, which is why it isn't a major issue even among people who consider the draft to be abhorrent.

Oh. Well, then why not just get rid of it then?

Indeed.

It's a compromise that allows pro-conscriptionists to have a token power while those opposed to the draft create a large hurdle to restart it. It's a tenuous peace that people don't think a lot about because the draft is outside the living memory of anyone who has to fill out the card. If you tried to kill it entirely, which wouldn't be a bad idea, the pro-conscriptionists might fight back. So it's left alone as a nth tier issue.

eta: I'll remind the casual reader the Infantry among all other Combat Arms were opened to women across all services. If there comes a day and we need to fill slots, because Trump wants to fight a land war in Asia, I think our girls should be at risk of being drafted, too. If our boys are good enough to be shot through the neck by an enemy's bullet I think our girls ought to be cool with it, too. You know. We all share the risk of war equally.

Who do you imagine yourself to be disagreeing with here? The complaint you had is that women participating in social demonstrations on gender issues aren't doing enough to make that a focus.

[_Lemmie]

Here are some more oppressed women, subjugated and subordinated by the Patriarchy to their very core:



SO TRIGGERED.

- Doc

Doc, come on. I'm a big fan of yours, but posts like this just make me sad.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, come on. I'm a big fan of yours, but posts like this just make me sad.

Well. Sometimes you win one and sometimes you come up short. Imagery is tricky.

When I see a picture like that I don't think or assume those women are oppressed. In fact, it's obvious to me they're the beneficiaries of a lifetime of privileged existence. Their hair is a symbol of status and liberation, and in fact the one on the right is so liberated she's culturally appropriated a weave look with nary a second thought. Their weight indicates a lifetime of soft excess, with enough within their reach that would make any great King throughout the history of mankind green with envy. It's midday and they're strolling about without existential fear of being attacked. In fact, they appear to be the beneficiaries of modern technologies and the availability easily obtained wares. Their clothing is designed for comfort, rather than for the sexual gratification for lascivious eyes. These women, if they choose to reproduce have a safe landing through various welfare programs where they can extract resources from others without their consent.

So, while my attempt at imagery probably was shocking and offensive (I don't know why a picture of three women walking down the street is shocking and offensive to some), I think my point that rather than being victims of the Patriarchy, I'd offer the suggestion they're the beneficiaries of a system that favors them.

Are they void of suffering? No. Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that. Are they being systemically oppressed? I argue against that. I think they're systemically privileged.

Anyway. When I see this:



Don't tell me that feminism is about equality. You can take half those signs on that march, flip the scripts, and I'm sure most people would absolutely lose their minds. If THAT isn't privilege then clearly I'm so mired in Patriarchy and misogyny I'm a lost cause. <-In b4 the 'clever' one or two use that last sentence as a quote.

- Doc

[Guest]

Who do you imagine yourself to be disagreeing with here? The complaint you had is that women participating in social demonstrations on gender issues aren't doing enough to make that a focus.

I don't know why you make statements like that. It's bizarrely myopic. I'm reminding the casual reader that the Infantry and other combat arms have opened up to female recruits, and if, in the event a land war in Asia breaks out, that we need to fill all slots and would be hampered by the fact that women aren't required to register. They would add ~11 million potential recruits to the pool.

What's wrong with you?

eta: I suppose the best example I could provide would be this. How would women feel if the government maintained the right, that perhaps they used in the past, even if it's largely symbolic these days, to forcibly impregnate the female population in order to do x-y-z? I don't think it's beyond the reach to imagine men AND women protesting en masse to remove such a blatantly unfair and discriminatory practice.

The idea that you're ok with a policy that targets only males to their detriment clearly underscores what's wrong with feminists and their servile male allies these days.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

At no point did I say I was ok with the policy. I even indicated I was not. I explained why it isn't a top tier issue. These are distinct things.

But do go on about how being overweight is demonstration that a person faces no discrimination or ill treatment based on gender.

[_Lemmie]

Doc, come on. I'm a big fan of yours, but posts like this just make me sad.

Well. Sometimes you win one and sometimes you come up short. Imagery is tricky.

When I see a picture like that I don't think or assume those women are oppressed. In fact, it's obvious to me they're the beneficiaries of a lifetime of privileged existence. Their hair is a symbol of status and liberation, and in fact the one on the right is so liberated she's culturally appropriated a weave look with nary a second thought. Their weight indicates a lifetime of soft excess, with enough within their reach that would make any great King throughout the history of mankind green with envy. It's midday and they're strolling about without existential fear of being attacked. In fact, they appear to be the beneficiaries of modern technologies and the availability easily obtained wares. Their clothing is designed for comfort, rather than for the sexual gratification for lascivious eyes. These women, if they choose to reproduce have a safe landing through various welfare programs where they can extract resources from others without their consent.

So, while my attempt at imagery probably was shocking and offensive (I don't know why a picture of three women walking down the street is shocking and offensive to some), I think my point that rather than being victims of the Patriarchy, I'd offer the suggestion they're the beneficiaries of a system that favors them.

Are they void of suffering? No. Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that. Are they being systemically oppressed? I argue against that. I think they're systemically privileged.

i wish you hadn't explained. Your use of the picture was disappointing, but the fact that you can take a single glimpse, clearly chosen to represent an entire gender in what you consider to be its worst possible light, and then use that single glimpse to generate such stereotyping and such contemptuous assumptions of their entire life histories, backgrounds and attitudes is sickening. Lately, your repeated, stereotypical descriptions of female human beings has surprised me greatly, and I keep hoping that I am reading more into it than you mean, but the more you explain the more it just sounds like contempt, disgust, and disdain for females who don't "behave."

So yes, "sometimes you win one and sometimes you come up short. Imagery is tricky."

I always thought this was you, not the above:

Truth in advertising here, by the way. I have a difficult time, even though I consider myself an advocate for the LGTBQRSTUV community, with all of that stuff. Can't help it. It's in me to feel uncomfortable with gender spectrum, homosexuality, cross dressing, whatever. I'm fairly certain it's a holdover from being raised as a Mormon and in living in a society that, at least in the 70's, 80's, and mostly 90's wasn't supportive of gay communities.

BUT.

I do believe everyone ought to be given as a starting point equality. It doesn't mean their ideas and behaviors can't be challenged, but they should have the human right of being equal under the law and given the same kind of considerations we take for granted.

- Doc
viewtopic.php?p=1067694#p1067694

i like that Doc very much. I'd like to meet you some day--maybe on your Appalachian trip, when you see the Palisades to your right, we can meet up for a hike and lunch!-- but I am a female who considers herself a feminist.

Don't tell me that feminism is about equality.

I most certainly will !

Will you refuse to meet me at all because you assume that, "rather than being victims of the Patriarchy," I am, as a feminist, simply one of "the beneficiaries of a system that favors [me]," and therefore not worthy of your time?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Will you refuse to meet me at all because you assume that, "rather than being victims of the Patriarchy," I am, as a feminist, simply one of "the beneficiaries of a system that favors [me]," and therefore not worthy of your time?

Well, humans inevitably disappoint one another. ;) It's like death and taxes.

That said, if an *insert your particular brand of* feminist can meet with a Post-Post-Modern Egalitarian then there's hope for this world after all! If, by the time my wife and I make it up to NY, and you can stand the aroma of 400 miles of hiking I'd be more than happy to try and keep up with you on the trail.

note: Full disclosure, we came off the trail last time because of my feet. She was much better suited to the rigors of long-distance hiking than I was. It is what it is.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

Your point is kind of lost on me.

Yeah, a lot of people have had this experience with you. It's pretty common.