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.
What’s kind of irritatingly ironic is that they piss and moan about all the guys giving their lives or limbs to military service (which I don’t take for granted, mind, I think we could tamp down a bit on our use of military forces, but that’s a different rant for a different day) but then women who serve can’t recount any of the horrors of war they face?
I’m not surprised, just, I mean, sheesh, double standards much?
Hmm, very interesting comments.
“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.”
I haven’t heard MRAs blaming feminists. The vast majority of them blame society and the expectations put on men. As for comments against lesbians; there is just as much if not more societal discrimination against homosexuals – it is not really a gender issue.
Are the writers of these comments really trying to say that the death of a woman is not much bigger news than the death of a man? Come on get real!
“if registration is required of men, it should also be required of women”. So what? This does not make it right. It is not required of women. It is therefore discriminating against men. A women’s organization is not society. For the writer to make this comment is nonsensical and shows a disregard for men’s rights, pandering to men-haters.
As to the talk of women-haters; the women’s movement has vastly more man-haters than the men’s movement has women haters.
So it’s bad when women serve in combat and it’s bad when they don’t. Ok, got it. I agree that they don’t actually want women in the military, but want us to stand in awe of their gender and give unending praise among other things. “Thankyou, thankyou men for protecting us from other men.” Sorry if I sound like I’m engaging in misandry, sorry David.
This whole thing is basically “how can I force women to be grateful to me for protecting them and therefore guilt trip them into sex and domestic servitude if they realize that they can protect themselves? “.
I think the MRA’s want to keep women out of combat so that they can try to justify taking away women’s rights. It’s another variation of their “votes or boats” argument. The argument doesn’t work on feminists, though, because we want equality, not protection.
“So it’s bad when women serve in combat and it’s bad when they don’t. Ok, got it. I agree that they don’t actually want women in the military, but want us to stand in awe of their gender and give unending praise among other things. “Thankyou, thankyou men for protecting us from other men.” Sorry if I sound like I’m engaging in misandry, sorry David.”
Your comment has very little substance. Where are your arguments for or against?
in MRA world women aren’t allowed to be ANYTHING but submissive houswives apparently. Along time ago on Pandagon, MRAs were saying that women should serve in the military by being forced to carry babies or be work in brothels…they also want men to be put on pedistals….while women get to be forced in very liminted roles. Ever notice how female MRAs wax on about how wonderful men are? I actually got in an argument with I think it was a prominiate female MRA of a few years ago or something where she said that women in the military would just feminise the men and make them less heroic looking….it was really really wierd….she also thought women shouldn’t play sports for the same reason
Ew. Fuck that noise.
Male disposability is the one that really bugs me, maybe because I’ve seen it raised in non-crackpot circles. Yes, men still do the majority of Important Things*! Yes, sometimes they get hurt in the process! No, this is not because society hates men!
*things our society places value on
Sexism, ableism, militarism…the usual. I have yet to meet a sexist male draft whiner who actually gave a fuck about it. Really, not one who cared about either 1) working for women to be included in combat positions or 2) working to end selective service.
Anyone remember which mra whined about the draft whose head I ripped off for calling draft resisters cowards?
MRAs are by and large pro-militarism conservatives, they aren’t interested in actually opposing the draft, just like they aren’t interested in working with militaristic women to include women, what they want is an excuse to abuse and control women and deny them rights, that’s all.
FYI, even if I weren’t a conscientious objector to everything but strict self defensive violence, I am too disabled to even be considered. Shit, I’m a medical disqualification on the eyesight alone. Not only is their militaristic whining sexist, it’s extremely ableist as well.
Oh, wanted to add my usual bit too: CIVILIANS EXIST AND SUFFER THE MOST HARDSHIPS FROM WAR.
@Discordia
“MRAs were saying that women should serve in the military by being forced to carry babies or be work in brothels…”
Could you go into more detail about this please? I’m fascinated.
How much do you wanna bet that none of those fools that boobies is quoting have even served? But then again, how many of the commenters here have served?
I like that we all think we know what we are talking about, even when we cant know. It isnt all honor and glory (if at all), and it does take a certain type of mindset. A mindset, I might add, that differs very much from an “every-day-sort” of mindset. Many folks come back changed.
it was on the old Pandagon site when it was still hosted by Blogsme….the site appears to be down and has been for awhile. Basically the MRAs were talking about how women could contribute to the military and it was all forced sex and pregnancy…really sick stuff. It was on exposes on MRAs and of course MRAs would come in swarms….it was really one poster doing this but none of his other buddies were calling him out on in either
You forgot the part where they can’t require any of their husbands’ time or resources while being submissive housewives. There’s almost as much ire from MRAs toward those who believe women should be housewives and that men should then support them as there is toward feminists.
I’m honestly not sure how women are supposed to avoid starving to death in MRA-land. They have to be self-supporting without being self-sufficient. I think the only model that would actually satisfy them is one where women can work, but only with the permission of their husband or a male caretaker, with all the pay going directly to the husband/caretaker. Women as property that can be rented out, essentially.
I think the idea is that whether women live or die should ideally be at the whim of the man who owns them, and dependent on how well the woman is pleasing the man. That’s the whole point – they want to engineer a society in which women will have no choice but to devote their entire lives to making whichever men happen to claim them happy.
What’s funny is that they think that state of affairs represents some sort of historical norm, as well as being “natural”.
DragonsBeHere, have you actually read the OP? Or any of the comments here? I get that you’re trying to be really deep and all but seriously, what are you even responding to?
ahhh trollsbehere I see you have shown your lovely face again.
Actually quite a bit, pecunium is the first to come to mind.
I have no idea what you are implying but I am going to assume you are implying the commentors (which you know have served because you are psychic) have changed into misogynist rage machines and therefore we should excuse them.
But then again you say:
I must conclude I have no fucking idea what the hell you are trying to say or why you said it. XD
My usual conclusion whenever Dragons shows up is that zie is very, very stoned.
@cassandra
Thats a good conclusion, it makes a lot of sense actually…..
Sooo… Quota’s across the board for pretty much everything. Extra special yum-yums, from NASA scholarships, to health care agencies, to charities, to loans, to employment. Trillions extra spent all on women only.
Want a women’s only lawyers association? You got it.
Wanna kill a man’s unborn child? Big Daddy gives you that right.
Kidnap a mans child and extort funds? No problems there.
Wanna comit the same crime and get punished less, if at all? Of course you can.
Would ya like to kick a man from his home? It’s a phone call away.
Oh hell, wanna million and a half bucks? Just falsely accuse a man of rape and sue something or another for not providing a safe space for your precious self.
Yet somehow having a limb blown off seems to elude the privileged class. You gals ain’t trying hard enough. Oh that’s right. I forgot. Women refuse to spill or shed blood for men.
Hell, you wouldn’t even bloody the nose of another woman to stick up for men.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/patriarchy-is-the-oppression-of-men/
Another piece from AVfM that exemplifies this line of “logic.” “We don’t have the freedom of pursing our prospective careers and earn money; the evil wives back at home are making us!”
And WHO can we turn to to overturn these binding traditional gender roles, hmmmm?
Women are ready to serve in combat, anyone who disagrees is cowardly :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Time-New-Military.jpg
@jumbodouche
Im not implying anything. But what I said, and Ill try to be a little more clear for ya this time around, is that without having served, how can one know what it takes to be a soldier?
Now Ill add a little more, please dont infer again- Not everyone can be a soldier, be it male, female (and, yes, that is what women are referred to as in the military), bi, tri, trans, but those whom are soldiers obviously know what it takes. If you think you can be trained to kill and do it for years, then come back and sell printers at Office Max, well Im afraid you are sorely mistaken.
I certainly didnt imply that we should excuse anything, that is solely your inference. There is no hidden meaning here.
@cassandra
lol
David wrote:
It’s discriminating against women because its premise is the idea that women are not fit to fill the roles played by various members of the military.
NOW is pandering to men-haters by saying that women should also be required to sign up for the draft if men are?
What are you smoking?
If you mean some other comment, then you should really read over your comments a couple of times to make sure they’re clear.
I ask again, what are you smoking?