A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[daboarder]

Y'know doaboarder, you came across as a troll on 3++, but you occasionally seemed to be intelligently trying to advocate something. Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "lalalalala, hypocrites, hypocrites, lalalalala!!"
um....ok?
As far as women in combat, the physical demands are a fair, scientifically-supported fact. However, it's not impossible for a woman to become at least sufficient for the levels set down for men. Not every soldier is an Adonis, after all. Opening up this avenue of recruitment adds a whole extra pool of recruitment to tap into in dire need. It would make sense to have a system able to use women on the battlefield, because we've seen that when the crap hits the fan, women end up killed by invaders anyway. May as well build a system where those who want a chance to defend their country can do so on the same terms as a guy can.

Hell, we're seeing this attitude with the actually pretty amusing Kurdish women fighting ISIS, and apparently putting the shivers up them by not only killing them, but taking their right to paradise away.

The protectiveness thing, the unit cohesion and morale? These are all responses to seeing women as a thing to protect, not another person. Arguably, soldiers are bred into it a little more than the average guy, as they often advertise to fight for the girl you've got back home, so you can return as a hero and know all the bad things done were to keep her and your kids safe.

But why can't a woman do the same thing? We have to consider how much of what we consider to be absolute truth, are just gender role 'laws' no more concrete than religious laws telling us how to live our life. People have fought against these 'absolute truths' for centuries, and if that isn't proof they're a load of crap, I don't know what is.

There was a really good quote from Cracked about how we should stop treating each other as conquests and prizes in relationships, and consider them more of a two-way deal between two people. Can't find it at the moment, though.

I liked this mariam al-mansouri

I mean if the UAE can do it at least the west can. Shame she was disowned by her family though, idiots.

[Wolfshade]

Debate, discuss and disagree. That is good. Just don't resort to insulting behaviour.

[Denzark]

I'm confused about your argument, Denzark. Of course if Betty is a bystander she's at most risk in a war than in a bushfire, if there is a fire and you aren't prepared to stay and defend (and actually know what you're doing) you get out. Whereas women in warzones are likely to be attacked by both sides. And if Betty is on YOUR side and you're stabbing her with a bayonet and shooting at her then I never, EVER want to be near the British army because what the hell?

We're talking about people as part of a squad, after all. And I'd put the risk fairly equal between the two. Then again, I am used to Australian bushfires which are huge natural disasters, and something that admittedly Britain lacks, so I can see why it would be seen as considerably less risky there.

Again, i can't comment on Aus fires Morgrim. i was using Betty as an example of what can happen to someone in the Squad - not by her own side! I think the risk is important because that is the basis of any risk assessment - although it is trite to bandy around casualty rates.

The protectiveness thing, the unit cohesion and morale? These are all responses to seeing women as a thing to protect, not another person. Arguably, soldiers are bred into it a little more than the average guy, as they often advertise to fight for the girl you've got back home, so you can return as a hero and know all the bad things done were to keep her and your kids safe.

But why can't a woman do the same thing? We have to consider how much of what we consider to be absolute truth, are just gender role 'laws' no more concrete than religious laws telling us how to live our life. People have fought against these 'absolute truths' for centuries, and if that isn't proof they're a load of crap, I don't know what is.

I try to anonymise what I do CG and to that extent it limits what I can write. Suffice to say I am second in command of an organisation of 400+ people. I have far too much to do in my day job to add 're-training' the troops to have different gender roles or views of women. We are there to protect democracy and doing that in the best way does not always mean practising it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

But shutting off half the population for potential recruitment despite historical events where women have fought to great effect does?

I'll have to take your word for it, as you know more about the issue than I do. However, I'd note that rank does not mean absolute knowledge, there have been many wrong commanders throughout history, though only in hindsight.

[Kirsten]

Really exhibit A?

yes really, you are exactly the problem.

[eldargal]

Yeah I mean this whole thing started because some women said 'We think a woman should be writing Wonder Woman, an incredibly important feminist icon' and pointed out that not only are superheroines under represented as leads in Hollywood but so are women writers, directors etc. So WB could have had women making Wonder Woman for women (but also men), but instead we get an untested, male writer whose 'up and coming' status exemplifies the Hollywood old boy network mentality in that he is writing a blockbuster iflm on low credentials because some already successful bruhs like him and see some potential. In response to this, we are informed we should be worried about the poor mens who can also write, like they don't already get to do that for 95% of Hollywood films already.

[Wolfshade]

Surely the best writter for it is the best writter without consideration to what gender the person is. Though how you objectively define best writter I have no idea Though certainly someone with a track record and proven box office sucess with superheroes/sci-fi/fantasy ?

[eldargal]

Surely the best writter for it is the best writter without consideration to what gender the person is. Though how you objectively define best writter I have no idea Though certainly someone with a track record and proven box office sucess with superheroes/sci-fi/fantasy ?

Sure but that's part of the problem, this guy is by no means the best writer. There are a dozen male writers who could do a better job (Joss Whedon for one despite his deeply problematic writing and behaviour sometimes) and dozens of women who could do the job brilliantly. If a really experienced, quality male writer got teh job I'd still think it was a shame but I'd be considerably less worried than I am about now. Part of the problem with how superheroine films have performed in the past is because they have not had the same quality of writers and directors as male led films, and it looks like that trend could be continuing with WW at least in terms of the writer.
Also as I've said I think the best writer generally for a female lead, and especially Wonder Woman, will usually be a woman.

[CoffeeGrunt]

"You don't win people, for one; we need to move past the idea that we live in a world in which someone else is a prize. That may be the product of hundreds of years of fiction assuring us all that women are available to be taken from dragons, evil knights, and sleeping spells, and all we need to do is show up and jam a penis at them."

- Felix Clay, on [URL="http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-stupid-ways-everyone-deals-with-breakups_p2/"]breakups[/URL]

[Gotthammer]

Surely the best writter for it is the best writter without consideration to what gender the person is.

Would you like me to repost my 700ish word explanation of why this isn't necessarily true for a third time?



Also in regards to women in the military:



This is LaVena Johnson, whose died in 2005 in Iraq in her base camp. She shot herself in the left temple (despite being right handed) with an M16 (a long rifle that left a very small, almost pistol sized, wound). This was after she broke her own nose, knocked teeth loose, covered herself in abrasions and hit herself so hard as to collapse one of her eyes. She had white military gloves glued to her burned hands because she also partially set herself on fire, and also created a blood trail leading away from her body. Her genital area was also doused in a corrosive chemical, something used to destroy DNA evidence, which is strange as the military investigation clearly decided it was a suicide.
They were so certain that they initially refused to release the information to her father who, after seeing her body, believed she had been sexually assaulted and murdered but were forced to after a freedom of information act claim.