[flagged]
There's a side component of the mens right advocacy movement that tries introducing the idea that there's some flaw in woman's rights movements because they're not true gender equality movements: inter alia, famously, lawsuits over ladies nights at bars
I think the reason that doesn't carry much attention is because it's intuitive, even without the concept involved, to understand why someone might advocate for equal pay but not for equal conscription. We are but sentient meat.
Of course you're not sure. You are the recipient of a decades long campaign to redfine the meaning of equality.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
It's not just men's rights. There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism. Erasing female as a distinct category entirely is supposed to be the anti-sexist option. Females are just weak men, too lazy to get taller and stronger. Or men are just big, sterile, extremely strong women. Now that I type it, I guess it is a men's rights movement.
Turning "woman-hating" into "misogynist" into "sexist" was as men's rights as turning Women's Studies into Gender Studies.
edit: always remember that the history of "sexism" is not a history of people hurting people, it's a history of men hurting women. Sexism is a euphemism. The reason only males are required to do military service in Korea is because men decided that's how it should be. If men decided otherwise, it would be changed.
Followed by:
> The reason only males are required to do military service in Korea is because men decided that's how it should be.
Is a truly staggering juxtaposition.
> If men decided otherwise, it would be changed.
SK is a democracy with a slight majority women, but of course, feminists and statistics are like oil and water. Always remember that.
Seems like he's trying to complain...everyone? blue team? women? women and betas? women and lib cucks? women and misled men?...lie and say women are as strong as men and saying otherwise is censored as sexism.
You misread it as complaining about people who say there's a difference in mens and womens strength, and start complaining about how this is adjacent to blaming male voters for conscription given woman vote too, and all feminists won't read statistics.
Both of you need to grow up, in that, these are silly strawmen and not even wrong, in the Pauli sense. There's nothing to engage with.
You're making up obviously false stuff, and you've found a safe way to not have to engage with reality by claiming if you tried, you'd have to deal with all feminists ignoring statistics because all feminists believe men are as strong as women.
Then please don't waste my time.
From the outside, it looks like all you get out of this is feeling upset, and it makes us wonder how you misread so wildly.
The comment I replied to is pretty standard feminist dreck, and if you can't understand it, maybe interlocute them first? Debate is one thing, spoon-feeding you explanations of someone else's comment is another.
Still, I'll give you a hint: both pessimizer and I agree that men and women are physically different - again, I did not misread them in that regard. The difference is that I take that to a logical conclusion, while they are bound by ideology to stop short.
Here's the second sentence of this post you've claimed twice now believes men and women are no different: "There is a massive part of the West who believes that to acknowledge that women are physically different than men is the real sexism."
Genuinely, I hope you're well.
I'm literally not claiming that, lmao. Sorry, but I won't be replying to you further because you're clearly functionally illiterate.
What I said was that:
> both pessimizer and I agree that men and women are physically different
If you don't understand a chain of comments, start from the top, and stop wasting my time.
If they make it compulsory for women it probably will just crash fertility further. Unless they couple it with the possibility of exemption for mothers.
1. Do you have evidence that it isn't?
2. You do realize that Korea is not actually a society with a lot of gender equality (or equality in general, as I'll note in point #4) as-is, right?
3. Which 'gender equality champions' exactly do you expect to be shouting about this so that you will hear about it? Americans and Europeans posting on Reddit and Hacker News?
4. Do you think that the existing problems regarding equality in conscription (with every connected person's sons actively dodging the draft) may be poisoning the well for anyone advocating - or considering advocating - throwing more bodies into that machine?
So let's think about what's needed for soldiers to engage in hand-to-hand combat:
1. They somehow need to lose their main weapon.
2. Their sidearm.
3. Be on the front line.
4. Somehow find an enemy soldier that also lost their main weapon and the sidearm.
5. Engage in hand-to-hand combat.
I'm not so sure. If you're shot or suffer other injury that affects mobility, it's really helpful to have some comrades around with enough upper-body strength to carry you somewhere where you can get help, or at least cover while waiting for it. Being able to carry a lot of equipment is also useful.