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.
“Tri”?
NWO, do shut up, and for the love of little green apples, stop saying “yum-yum.”
Hey Dragonsbestoned, you know so much, did you serve?
Is that shitty photoshop supposed to prove something, Uncle Elmer?
3 of um all in a row.
Do you refer to women solely on what other call them? I bet you love calling women “cunts” and “whores” too since other people call women that. You are an idiot troll who is obviously only saying that to annoy people.
Always nice to hear people mocking queer people. (hint there is not “trisexual” as far as I know)
Ahhh now I see your point, women/queer people just don’t have what it takes amiright?
Honestly the only “jumbodouche” here seems to be you.
Ugh, Uncle Elmer. What’s your point again?
Speaking of Selective Service, I’m surprised you didn’t review my Memorial Day essay :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/28/rite-of-passage
Animals? 😉
Well, I suppose yum-yums are kind of phallic looking…
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/456073/456073,1275141156,16/stock-photo-yum-yum-sugar-coated-pastry-isolated-against-white-background-54112225.jpg
(Do they have these in the US or are they purely a British thing? Never seen them here.)
NWO, shouldn’t you be out protesting Bilderburg or something?
@jumbodouche
More inference, I see. Last response at you from me, jumbodouche.
You know, it’s true that transpeople can’t be soldiers (unless they’re in the closet and haven’t transitioned) because they’re excluded entirely from the military. Not really sure what a “tri” person is, could you explain? Was saying animals and then making a winking emoticon supposed to mean something?
So a woman breast feeding in army fatigues hurts the military…how?
Would it be better if she tossed the baby like it was a puppy, like that one video? Or stacked a bunch of gagged and tortured babies in a pile while striking a pose?
What exactly do you have against NAWL, Owly?
Did you know the National Association of Women Lawyers was founded in 1899, long before most bar associations even admitted women?
This is an example of the Massive Gynocracy how? Explain, Owly, or just shut the fuck up already.
If I may paraphrase Bill Hicks…
When did breast-feeding become a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting?
No? Because they do.
Are you a lackwit or something? You are being criticized for your hypocrisy.
There’s a reason a lot of women want in, fool.
[blockquote] 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.[/blockquote]
I’m tickled that this is NWO’s response to a post about NOW calling for women to be included in the draft and about women suing to be allowed into combat. Kind of makes you wonder if he even reads the things, doesn’t it?
@trollsbehere
No its pretty clear you were mocking queer people with your “trisexual” comment and trying to be a douche with you “female cause-thats what they call women” comment.
Oh, for fudge’s sake. I swear I thought that was how you made quotes. Is it the pointy brackets?
Owly thinks that womenz already control everything, so naturally if they are not already subject to the draft and are not exactly 50% of front-line combat troops, it is because they don’t want to be and are only putting on a show of wanting to so they can fool all the menz.
But Owly sees right through their clever ruse! No, the New World Order, for all that it fools most men most of the time, cannot deceive a man of his superior intellect.
Leeloo, yes those are the ones!
Now if I could only remember to close them when I post…
@Leeloo Yup, pointy brackets. And you’re right, NWO never reads anything but the title of the post. If I had a dollar for every time he posted a “gotcha” link to something David had already addressed in the OP, I could retire.
@David
“As to the talk of women-haters; the women’s movement has vastly more man-haters than the men’s movement has women haters.”
Really. Really? REALLY?
Go browse through the comments section of The Spearhead. I have never seen any “man-hating” on this site. If you find some, please point it out.
Here’s one for the trolls
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3pjklq/
@David
That only makes sense if you’re defining “man-hater” as “hates any man, any where, for any reason” and non-“woman-hater” as “likes some woman, somewhere, who perfectly follows my rules”. See the difference?