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.
It’s possible to desire to understand something as precisely as possible without approving of it, or making excuses for it.
I linked an article discussing dishonorable discharges of queer soldiers at the beginning of this discussion, FYI, so it’s absolutely fucking clear it has happened. Not to mention that general discharges for policy violation of DADT didn’t fucking exist before 1993, all queer people were given either offical less than honorable punishment discharges or mental illness discharges.
And, yes, this is the second time Pecunium has endorsed the notion that it is not homophobic, anti-queer, or punishing queerness to punish all queer sex. Last time, a lot of people wrote it off because of the religious stuff attached, but it’s the exact same fucking issue. It’s the exact same argument, he doesn’t feel it’s unfair or homophobic to punish any queer person who ever fucks and does not see it as punishing queerness.
VoIP — “…and if he explains in detail, he’ll be accused of pedantry. ” — ehh, I have no issue with pedantry, I’ve been known to engage it in myself, point was to know when to drop it if there’s no point besides pedantry.
“So it’s not disproportionate. DADT was a different thing, and discharges prior to it for violating 125 were disproportionate, and I never denied it. I could have pointed out that I know of straights who have been charged with violations of 125,far more than gays, because 125 is almost always included in rape cases, and almost all rape cases against service members are male/female rape.”
I can read as either intending to say that rape victims are charged the same as homosexuals, and thus it’s not disproportionate (just fucked up all over the place) — or as saying that straight rapists are punished the same as homosexuals, which I guess might make the numbers proportionate but implies homosexual sex is the same as rape. Either I’m misreading it, or the point is that straight rapists “charged with violations of 125,far more than gays” and thus “it’s not disproportionate” — conveniently ignoring the “minor” factor of consent.
…Who’s asking Pecunium to explain discharges regarding homosexuals? Fucking hell.
That would be the least of what he’s done.
Sure, but that isn’t really what’s going on here.
Except you were writing as though this were Pecunium’s own position, which it wasn’t. In fact, he seems to have protested DADT:
A lot of queer groups thought DADT was better than the older system of disciplinary discharges, including dishonorable discharges, as they resulted in worse after effects than administrative discharges. There were also hopes that it would somewhat curb anti-queer witch hunts and interrogations. The fact that he’s proclaiming it as worse when thousands of queer people would suffer greated punishment under the old rules is just one more piece of erasure and dismissal of queer experiences. Opposing a half-measure like DADT in 1993 as a hetero who supports the sodomy rules is not exactly a progressive stance anyways in all likelihood.
VoIP — I think you misread my original comment, it started with “Either…” — if it doesn’t mean either of the obvious readings, then Pecunium is the only one who can clarify.
Male disposability goes a lot deeper than just men in the military, it’s a perception that burdens men in many avenues of life. Should MRA’s be in favor of women being allowed in combat positions if they have to live up to the same exact physical standards as men? Yes, I think they should if they’re for equal rights, but since they’re men’s rights activists and don’t exactly have a ton of resources at the moment, I don’t see why it should be a top priority for them, especially since there’s already plenty of influential groups fighting for it, as you pointed out. Women getting allowed into combat positions doesn’t exactly solve the perception of male disposability pervasive throughout all of society. Actually, I’m not even sure it does anything to solve it.
As far as selective service registration goes, you can call it a formality because you don’t think the draft will ever be brought back, but as long as a draft is possible, it’s not a formality, it’s there because it might happen, however unlikely in the near future. If it was just a formality, it wouldn’t exist. When I filled out applications for my driver’s license, when I registered to vote, when I applied for university, I was told on those forms that I had to be registered for the selective service, or else. That’s not a formality, that’s once you turn 18, you can’t legally do anything until you register for the draft. It hasn’t been made illegal, and women are not required to register for a draft of non-combat service, so you can’t claim that the reason women don’t have to do it is because they don’t have the right to fight in combat positions.
“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.”
Whether or not there is actual conscription, a man who does not register is a FUGITIVE. He forfeits eligibility for financial aid and job retraining, just to name a few of the penalties.
These things will follow him the entirety of his days – not just while he is considered to be of military age.
Is there ANY requirement made of women that parallels that?
I don’t think so, so it comes across as particularly obnoxious when women become shrill and indignant over their “body ownership” and the tiniest threats to their legal status as lords of humanity.
I really doubt there are many MRA’s who care if you are getting blown up instead of them. Of course, we object to you bringing the “oh, I had a drunk one night stand so I was raped” crap into the military.
It’s always interesting to read anti-male hate articles that use twitter or youtube comments to support their theories of just how “evil,” people that support human rights for men are, but this takes the cake:
“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.”
Maybe, maybe not? LOLOLOLOL
Is Gloria Steinem a serial killer? Maybe, maybe not, but serial killers are terrible and I just mentioned her name in relation to them so you be the judge….
I’m an MRA and I’m certainly not a feminist, though I do support women that want equal rights between the sexes. That’s not what a true feminist is though. Feminists want rights for women and no rights for men. Hate to tell you, but from the beginning of time to right now, MOST men never had any rights. We’ve had responsibilities, but never any rights and whether you like it or not, men are waking up to this.
heyheyheyhey, the reason I said their logic was identical to the logic of many MRAs on this subject is that, well, it is.
For examples of MRAs arguing that women aren’t fit to serve in the military or in combat, see:
http://manboobz.com/2010/12/12/g-i-jane-you-ignorant-slut/
http://manboobz.com/2011/10/01/women-in-combat-who-put-sand-in-your-vaginas/
http://manboobz.com/2012/09/29/us-army-brig-general-charged-with-rape-whos-to-blame-according-to-the-spearhead-its-women/
And here’s another rather peculiar line of argument on the women in the military issue from perhaps the most prominent MRA out there at the moment:
http://manboobz.com/2013/01/26/a-voice-for-men-well-support-women-in-combat-only-if-the-proper-percentage-of-women-get-killed/
Holy shit, it’s must be Necro Week here. It’s like Shark Week, only 1000% more tedious.
Hehheyhey, why don’t read all the comments before you bring the same old shit to the table, is that too much to ask?
Heyheyheyheyheyheyheyhey
Those comments were not from Twitter or YouTube, they were comments responding to a LA Times article. In the future, please misread more current posts, it’s more productive then necro-trolling ones that are over year old.
“Anti-male hate articles”? If you were more intellectually honest you would recognize that gender hate emanates from places like AVFM rather than Manboobz. You’re just a MRA true believer that can’t handle any scrutiny directed at your pseudo-movement.
Since the troll has gone and necro’d a women in the military thread, I am going to seize the opportunity to shamelessly link to my latest women-in-the-military picture.
Damn, you are one fine artist, katz.
Ever do portrait commissions?
Sure, but only for fun.
That makes sense! I don’t like doing commissions at all. The commission bit takes the fun out of the work, cos I’m selfish and want to do stuff for MEEEEEEE.
I was thinking how cool it’d be to have portraits of no-you-couldn’t-possibly-guess-who by artists here if, and only if, they thought it’d be fun to do so.
Thing is, when I draw real people for whom I have plenty of photo reference, I prefer to rotoscope, which might not be all that exciting since it would just be a drawn copy of one of your pictures.
If you had any pictures that weren’t coming together the way you liked (lighting wasn’t consistent, couldn’t find a good stock photo of that item of clothing/prop/background, etc), that’s the perfect sort of thing for me to redraw.
A women’s movement that isn’t also a men’s movement. How evil.
Also, while many men have lacked rights, women have lacked even fewer rights and on top of that are denied rights purely because of gender.
katz – now that would be cool, ‘cos I can’t find a photo to make up Louis’s latest knitwear. It’s not a complicated thing, just a cardie that alternates big horizontal bands of rib and moss stitch.
Oh yeah, that would be easy-peasy if you can send me the base image you want me to work with and a pattern/pic of the cardie.
Whoot! So how much would you charge? Is it a rate per figure? (Art trivia: Goya apparently charged more if he had to paint hands, ‘cos they’re difficult.)
Pff, I wouldn’t charge for that sort of thing. It’s just for fun.
Oh, are lots of MRAs likely to be blown up then? Have large numbers of MRAs been just been drafted? Or volunteered to come out from behind their keyboards and join the military?
Because unless they have, you slimy shit stain, you should stop trying to claim some sort of vicarious credit for being the same gender as other people who are not MRAs but who genuinely are at risk.
Yes, we know that you are a rape apologist who doesn’t give a shit about rape victims, male or female, unless you can use them to play some petty gotcha against women. But thanks for demonstrating it so clearly.