"If equality means treating women as badly as men, I want no part of it"

Female soldier, liberating women from ISIS
while Feminists focus on manspreading by tired men on trains.

Who does more for women?

(source)

(source)

A reaction to http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1120821/drafting-women

"If equality means sending my daughters to war, I want no part of it"

You want no part of equality? Strangely enough, neither do most of your enemies. The weird thing is, some of those - also - draft women for war.

So I'm not sure how you are going to impose this weird female supremacism since undermining America will only likely lead to you being in one of those systems instead.

"Though our nation hasn't had a draft since the 1970s, selective service registration remains a reality for young men. I admit that, as a mom to two young girls, the draft is not something I have ever given much thought to."

So you didn't care about equality until it turned out equality meant your daughters could die like your sons would.

(source)

That's called Selective Sociopathy. You have lost the ability to feel empathy for men.

Half of your soul has died.

"But here’s the thing about equality: Men and women are not equal."

Then equality is a foolish goal, and Feminism should give up.

"sending women off to war does not present an equal opportunity to women by nature of the fact that women are physically different from men"

It doesn't take a lot of strength to be a pilot, and
women might even be better suited to the role
because being small is an advantage

You think war is an opportunity? Do you not hear your own words? This is about obligations.

We men are obliged to defend our country. Why aren't you women?

(source)

Are you saying you are too weak to pick up a gun? It's funny that women in other countries manage it.

Oh, is it just feminist women who are too feeble?

Fair enough.

Then if they are too pathetic for that job,
then banning them from other physical work
becomes completely reasonable. You can't have it both ways.

But here's the thing: weak men get drafted.

(source)

And a lot of combat has no physical component now. Drones, for example. Or mine clearing.

Tell me why women cannot clear mines? That only men's lives should be sacrificed?

Because that's what it's really about, to Feminists.
#HeForShe.

Men should die so women don't have to.

Even some muslim countries are looking into
gender-neutral conscription. (source)

You see women's lives as more valuable than men's.

You hate equality, and love supremacy.

The Feminist response:

@HTRCADE @Bayonethics We'll laugh when they draft Women during a World War & American population declines due to war + low birth rates! 🇺🇸

— GirlsLikeUs (@FemalesLikeUs) June 16, 2016

@FemalesLikeUs You think women will be safe at home during WW3? I admire your optimism! #FeminismIsCancer

— brett caton (@bcaton2) June 16, 2016

Screenshot in case of deletion.

A woman, 'safe' at home, in Tokyo.
Charred to ash, with what could be her child dead beside her.

Slain by conventional weaponry.

No-one is safe during a war big enough to mean conscription for men.
At least arming women would mean they could shoot at their enemy.

Wikimedia Commons: Koyo Ishikawa

I found this discussion of the Feminist response to possible gender neutral conscription in Tumblr. The screenshots are very revealing of what Feminists really think of equality.

http://kamiyu910.tumblr.com/post/146034426688/ive-been-reading-tweets-and-stuff-about-the

Also, if you need further evidence that this is a mainstream Feminist position, see:
We Already Draft Women In Times Of War, which argues that women should be protected from dangers and kept safe inside because their wombs make them too precious to risk - ironically, the same argument that Islamists use, and that used to be condemned... by Feminists.

My counter-argument is:

a) where the hell is the safety in keeping them at home, when bombs, missiles, and bullets cut down civilians routinely in any big war, and the only reason they aren't killing Americans is there's been no big wars since WW2, and Vietnam - the last war of conscription - was a demonstration of the failure of conscription for anything less than a big war

b) this would only protect women with viable wombs anyway - who, if conscription applies, would be forced to reproduce, which is something not even the Nazis did - conscription forces men to fight and die, after all; force, not choice, is the whole point of it

c) Realistically, if the war is so terrible that unforced human reproduction wouldn't replace the numbers, then you are fucked anyway because some other party will waltz in and take over - humans take decades to reproduce, and it takes hours or days to land troops - the author has no fucking idea how militaries work!

---

See Also:

Apranik (source)

"Female emperors ruled over the many dynasties of the Persian Empire. Many ancient Persian cities and states were ruled by women and had their army totally under control of female commanders.


Women in Persia were very honored and revered; they often had important positions in the Courthouse, Ministries, Military, State and Treasury Department, and other official administrations. Women were treated like Goddesses esteemed as mothers of creation before the barbaric invasion upon Persia. " (source)

Note:

I haven't seen confirmation of these claims outside Feminist websites. Feel free to cite sources to the contrary in the comments.

However.

If this is true... how the Hell can it be reconciled with the Feminist dogma that Patriarchy was oppressing women for all time in all places? That Feminism was needed to save women?


Why were Feminists opposed to the ERA? Conscription!

Feminist professor ties to weasel her way out of the draft.

Feminists demand men die like dogs for their safety

Why do MRAs keep bringing up the draft?


"If equality means sending my daughters to war, I want no part of it" (source)



You don't want any part of equality? Oh well, there are many Islamic countries - however, even some of them talk about female conscription, so choose wisely!

"But being a feminist doesn't have to mean standing up for sending our daughters to war."
Just the sons, apparently. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. It's the feminist way!

"In the event of a draft, sending women off to war does not present an equal opportunity to women by nature of the fact that women are physically different from men"

Interesting. So you think women should be paid less for any physical work? Bold move!

But no-one says to weak men that they can use that as an excuse to avoid the draft. And the Feminist claim that women are just as capable as men includes the downside of people believing it. So you think women are weak and feeble, and need strong men to protect them? Hail, Patriarchy!

" it’s not discrimination; it’s a privilege"

Hahahahahaaha, oh god, you're serious. Well, tell you what, we'll give you this privilege. You get to die protecting us, and we get to complain about you, and give you a white feather if you try and refuse.

Shell shock. Now called PTSD.

Feminists claim the variety they get from Twitter
is even more serious than the trauma soldiers face

Soldiers from all nations went mad with fear during war.

Being shot for cowardice was the only tool sufficient
to force most to keep fighting.

"Should my daughters grow up to choose a career in military service, I would support them 100 percent"

... because women are just as capable in the military as men, except when it's inconvenient?

"the number of women who feel physically and emotionally capable of taking on that role are the exception"

I don't think you understand conscription. If men volunteered - there wouldn't be a need to force them. You think men are 'emotionally capable' -  to kill, to watch their mates die or see a kid bleed out from shrapnel or lose their manhood to a mine?

What world are you from? Are you so blinded by Feminism that you think men are these raging berserkers, glorying in blood and death? If so, wouldn't taking up arms and learning how to fight us be the only sane course of action?

"If feminism, at its core, is about the power to fully empower women" - wow, another definition for Feminism - how many millions is it up to now? But so much for Feminism being about equality - you really need to tell all those Feminists like Emma Watson that it's not, it's about POWER.

Because I agree with you. It's gynocentricism, it's a gender supremacist cult, that demonises men yet depends on them for all the dirty work.

You want us to die for you?

FUCK. OFF.

"You can't say that women have always been equal"

(one thing I noticed reading this article is that Feminist historians keep referring to different periods of history as Golden Ages for Women.

How can all these different centuries throughout time be unique in that they allowed women to work and hold power positions?

Can our histories be trusted when it is being re-written by ideologues to meet whatever 'truth' they want it to be at the time?)

Continued from Laws that affect women and men equally are misogyny sexist raaaaaape

"Honestly it's a problem for both genders, but you can't say that women have always been equal, and there still are problems women face today that are outrageous. And feminism is not about bringing men down, it's about setting a level playing field and getting rid of the problems that both men and women face, like gender roles and stereotypes. There are extremists who go as far as to hate others but when isn't there? I can say a lot more about how feminism is necessary but it's almost midnight and I'm tired." (source)

(UGH, another Feminist who doesn't know how to use whitespace)

"but you can't say that women have always been equal"

"in the fourteenth century women’s work ...
was equally paid with that of men....

... he found that their day rates were equal
whilst as full time manorial servants they
got less than men usually in lower paid occupations."

[So when they did equal work, they received equal pay]
(source)

I can and do - I say they were different, however. Feminists routinely claim that the evil Patriarchy (i.e. all men, everywhere) conspired to stop women working. This is garbage. Historical documents routinely show women not only working, but ruling, since the dawn of history.

Unless Feminists have Tardises, they simply cannot take the credit for it. Feminism is a recent doctrine and the concept was completely alien to groups such as the suffragettes, and their predecessors, the Suffragists and the Chartists.

"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of King's Bench" By Great Britain. Court of King's Bench

" As no peculiar objection is stated against the appointment of the present defendant the objection must be taken to be a general one that a woman cannot in any case be appointed an overseer of the poor and that she is by law exempted from serving such an office The statute 43 Eliz c 2 mentions substantial householders which in terms comprehends the present defendant because substantial householder has no reference to sex

So that females are not entitled to any exemption from any thing that appears in the act itself neither must there necessarily be any implied exemption in the statute from any analogy to the exemption of women from serving other offices...

First there is no necessary incapacity arising barely from a consideration of the sex which disqualifies a woman from executing this office

 And secondly even if there were some parts of the duty of overseer which a woman could not execute in person she may appoint a deputy

As to the first the principal duties of the office consist in collecting the poor rates in the parish in settling the parish accounts and in providing work for the poor all of which may be performed by a female

A woman is capable of serving almost all the offices in the kingdom a such as those of queen marshal great chamberlain and constable of England & the champion of England commissioner of sewers c governor of a work house sexton c keeper of the prison of the Gate house of the dean and of Westminster _ returning officer for members of parliament g and constable A the latter of which is in some respects judicial It is well known too that the office gaoler is frequently executed by a woman

But secondly a woman could not execute in person every part of the of an overseer of the poor she may appoint a deputy may perhaps be objected to this that the power of appointing a deputy is confined to ministerial offices only and this is not of that description..."

In other words, a woman could do all the jobs, and if she was physically unable, she could employ a deputy to do it.

The Feminist version of history uses the period of mass conscription - around WW1 & 2 - where men were told they had to fight for their country, but in return, they could expect jobs to be waiting.

Women were told they wouldn't have to fight, but would have to give the surviving men their jobs in return for their safety.

Images of women being threatened have always been used
to manipulate men into fighting to protect them.
But when do we see women fighting to protect men?

Was that a bad deal?

The suffragettes were offered a chance at conscription - presumably with the same bargain. They turned it down.

Recently, the US courts have ruled that women are the equal of men
- and so face equal responsibilities.

Like conscription.


Feminists have now decided this is the wrong sort of equality in Norway. Feminists in the US are outraged at the very idea.

Treating women like they were lowly men? The nerve of them!

" there still are problems women face today that are outrageous"

Yet I don't see Feminism dealing with them. And they mostly occur in countries where outrageous things happen to men - and Feminism, despite it's claims to ownership of equality, never acts on their behalf.

"feminism is not about bringing men down"

You might want to tell Mary P Koss about that one. And those Feminists in Israel and India who fought and won the battle to keep female rapists from being charged.

And the Feminists who made a new Apartheid, and forced men off buses and trams and trains, so that women and women alone had special treatment, special carriages where they were safe while men were forced into the second class seats and told to learn their place.

I don't care what Feminism SAYS. The Communists said they were just about sharing. The Nazis claimed to be peaceful, fighting defensively, an oppressed class punching up...

I care what Feminism DOES.

Feminism actively harms men and boys. When that changes, let me know.

"There are extremists who go as far as to hate others "

... and they were appointed to leadership positions by people like you, who are happy to enable their dirty work and let yourself think your hands are clean.

What NOW does:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/now-seeks-total-domination-of-whitehouse.html

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/so-how-do-feminists-really-feel-about.html

How Feminism harms children and men:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/feminism-harms-children.html

Feminism demands superior pay for the same work:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/feminists-to-lower-male-wages-across-uk.html

Feminism erases Female Rapists:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/40-of-rapists-in-rape-culture-are-women.html

Feminism demands all sex be State-controlled:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/feminists-demand-all-sex-be-controlled.html

Feminists hate sex:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/nsfw-why-do-feminists-hate-sex.html

Feminists hate men:

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/the-worlds-laziest-genocidal-maniacs.html

Feminism is a hate movement.

And yeah, I'm well aware you Feminists aren't going to read any of these links - the evidence that contradicts your dogma has been available for decades - it's emotion that you're running on, not reason, which is why the other disputants always leapt to emotional attacks rather than disputing my points with evidence.

But you lot aren't the only ones who see this page. It's open to the public. How do you imagine it looks to outsiders when any dissent is met with a torrent of abuse? When reasoned arguments are unknown to your side?

Your group controls the West, by and large, and I expect it will for decades - but every day, more and more will be pushed into our quarter.

It might take a day when a black man is told by a white woman that he can't ride the bus because he's born wrong.

Or it might take having a son arrested when he's done nothing wrong.

But every little bit of harm adds up. Resistance is growing.

And I think we'll win, in the end.

Further Reading:

From "Suffragettes can't save feminism":

...One such example is a recently discovered document listing English women voters in an election which took place in 1843, 75 years prior to legislation recognizing women's voting rights in 1918. At that time, suffrage for men was not universal, but limited to the upper classes, with various groups agitating for parliamentary reform throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The women recorded in the 1843 document would have had to meet the standards met by men. They paid a fee, and it determined how their vote was counted. Note that the article mentions that the high fee paid by Grace Brown gave her 4 votes, where those who paid less got only one vote. These women also enjoyed a privilege denied to men who did not meet legal voting requirements. Adult men who were not heads of households could not vote.

Prior to the formation of the United States, voting in the colonies was largely governed by the same standards used in England. However, contrary to popular belief, women were not universally barred from voting.

As with the women in England's 1843 document, American women who voted prior to the 20th century did so under the same terms and conditions faced by men, save for one: Women were not and still are not subject to being drafted into the military in times of war.

One interesting example of early female voters prior to universal male suffrage is the colony of New Jersey, where gender was not a factor in voting rights until the Democratic-Republican party, which eventually became the Democrat party, took the vote away from Jersey women, minorities, non-citizens, and the poor in 1807 over conflict between their party and federalists.

Even after the U.S. became a nation, men's suffrage was not universal. Voting rights continued to evolve throughout the 19th century, with states slowly letting go of property ownership requirements over the course of decades.

After the 15th amendment was ratified, recognizing black male citizenship and voting rights, southern states passed "grandfather clauses" to roll back their rights, and used Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to get out of recognizing them until the success of the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. This allowed wealthy and middle class white women to vote while many poor and minority men and women were kept away from the polls.

In 1876, the supreme court ruled that Native Americans were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment, and therefore could not vote. In 1890, they were told they could apply to become naturalized citizens in their own ancestral land. Laws denying citizenship to various Asian immigrants passed in 1882 (the Chinese exception) and 1922 (Japanese immigrants.)

In 1919 Native Americans and in 1925 Filipinos were told they could earn citizenship by risking their lives serving in American wars.

Various stipulations, including Jim Crow laws and poll taxes, left the majority of the indigenous population of the U.S. and its territories, along with the majority of Asian immigrants, and most minorities, subject to the rule of the American government without representation by officials for (or against) whom they had the right to vote - the same injustice that sparked the Revolutionary war. Asians did not see their voting rights universally recognized until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

Native Americans' right to vote was not fully recognized until 1957, 37 years after the 19th Amendment recognized women's right to vote... 12 years before the first man walked on the moon.

It was not until 8 years after Native Americans were recognized, 4 years after the first manned American space flight and 4 years before we put a man on the moon, that the Voting Rights Act passed, protecting the right of all blacks and other minorities to vote.

Upper class white women got the vote in 1920.

Impoverished black men and women did not truly get theirs until 1965.

(source)


European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings, despite the claims by Feminists that all violence is masculine in nature.

Feminists call for a new Holocaust

So @x_Aeon_x has been suspended for anti-feminism.
But here are some of the things @twitter is OK with. #RIPTwitter pic.twitter.com/Pkk3AYvfSS

— ♂=♀ (@manumiss1on) April 28, 2016

"Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is misogyny": Ancient Feminist Saying.

FYI, @Reebok released the Alien Stompers, worn by a woman, in Men's sizes 6-13 ONLY. If this isn't misogyny, I don't know what is.

— Yaya Han (@YayaHan) April 26, 2016

.@YayaHan @Reebok Sigourney Weaver is 6 foot tall and wears a size 10... (As do I.) You don't know what misogyny is. #Facepalm

— Sophia Eris (@HiddenTara) April 29, 2016

Why do Feminists hate Equality?

https://forloveofreason.tumblr.com/post/142725318555/actuallyitsaboutequality-so-the-good-type-of

A reply to Why Drafting Women Wouldn’t Be “Equality” https://archive.is/s18DB 30 Mar 2016 19:45:34 UTC

This is an example of why arguments are futile when dealing with dishonest agents. They aren’t discussing equality, they are discussing “equality”.

Suddenly the meaning of the word is subverted - the truth is, they want to be able to redefine it on the fly.

Is there any chance of them having a reasonable exchange of views if they wish to change the meaning of words? None. You are no longer speaking the same language.

I’m not exaggerating. I noticed that particular piece of perfidy was used throughout the original posting here.

“ There was a law that said women have to give birth. “

Name the law, then.

“ Abortion was against the law. “

And so it begins: a quick shuffle of the goalposts. Infanticide has often been illegal, yes. It’s always been a legal compromise between the interests of the parents and the child as to when one can kill the other.

But abortion has nothing to do with conscription. This is a deflection.

In fact, almost all of this is deflection. The OP will do almost anything to avoid the discussion of conscription.

Instead, they want to discuss every other topic under the sun in the hope of doing the good old Gish Gallop.

TALK. ABOUT. CONSCRIPTION.

“ it practically was women’s responsibility to give birth “

I have to laugh at that one tho’ - yes, if women didn’t give birth, the society perished. Only a feminist could decide that a biological necessity was a conspiracy against them by those wicked Old White Men.

“ Therefore, if you’re truly interested in equality, then if you believe it is right to have women drafted for warfare alongside men, then you’d equally believe it’d be right for technology to be built to enable men to give birth also, if there were a childbirth draft. “

A technology that doesn’t exist, may never exist, and logically, wouldn’t require men to be pregnant either. How fucking desperate do you have to be to avoid discussing conscription that you say “it can only apply to us if pink unicorns carry us to and from battle”.

STICK TO BLOODY REALITY, NOT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS.

Pregnancy has actually been used as an out for women in countries with  female conscription, so your argument has already been a failure.

But the practical consequence of that is - you have absolutely no excuse not to be drafted if not pregnant. Many women can’t get pregnant ever, and long term contraceptives are readily available. The technological barrier to female combatants has disappeared.

You just don’t want to do it. You have decided that equality means HeForShe - men must die for the good of women. You have decided that just because some women can get pregnant, then all women must be exempt.

Well, so fucking what? Some men are disabled - they are then exempted from most duties - but there are still jobs they can do.


Feminists claim a pregnant woman can run a country - and having given birth, can keep doing so - but never have to get their hands dirty like men do with the business of killing?

It's always important to have a nice nap in the middle of running the fucking country.

I adore the fact that Feminists can be this bloody pampered
and still manage to spin it all into their narrative of being oppressed.

Can anyone tell me how she can be competent enough to organise a war, yet too incompetent to operate a drone?

Pick. One.

---

I do think it's hilarious that the Topless MP sketch from Tracey Ullman's show would turn out to be less extreme than the Feminist reality.

Further Reading:

Welcome to your new Commander, Marine!

In Marines' new fitness plan, pullups for women won't be mandatory because enemy soldiers will never be so unchivalrous as to fight as hard against a woman...

"“Since the PFT score is tied directly to promotion, there is already a sentiment that the scoring system is not fair,” the officer said."

So in other words, men will be actively discriminated against by female officers who will never have to work as hard as they do. Sounds like a Feminist wet-dream.