This week in patriarchy: Ukraine expels women and children so men can have combat to themselves

[Metaphor]

I am opposed to the draft—except in some emergencies.

Then you are not opposed to the draft.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The headline here is not that half the country is being forbidden to leave on the basis of their sex, no, but that one man who identifies as blah blah blah

So basically people should prioritize coverage of issues properly.

Did I get that right?

Is this part of the satire?

Please do not falsely insert words when you quote me.

No, you didn't get that right. I made a jab at media coverage ignoring and glossing over the detention of millions of men, and talking about it only in the context of a trans woman who was also detained because he too is a man.

I also made a point against how society has and continues to appropriate men's bodies as tools of war.

EDIT: What I didn't expect was people suddenly being a-okay with the draft.

NICE TRY! Media coverage is still people choosing priorities of what topics to discuss, just like YOU.

 

[Metaphor]

The headline here is not that half the country is being forbidden to leave on the basis of their sex, no, but that one man who identifies as blah blah blah

So basically people should prioritize coverage of issues properly.

Did I get that right?

Is this part of the satire?

Please do not falsely insert words when you quote me.

No, you didn't get that right. I made a jab at media coverage ignoring and glossing over the detention of millions of men, and talking about it only in the context of a trans woman who was also detained because he too is a man.

I also made a point against how society has and continues to appropriate men's bodies as tools of war.

EDIT: What I didn't expect was people suddenly being a-okay with the draft.

NICE TRY! Media coverage is still people choosing priorities of what topics to discuss, just like YOU.

Of course they are choosing. They were choosing to spotlight one man because he identifies as a woman, and do not mention the millions of other men detained because they too are men.

And I chose, as part of my OP, to point that out, among other things.

By the way, Don2, if you took me off ignore only to get back into your habit of going in to my threads just to say 'you and your priorities are evil and fucked', I'd prefer you put me on ignore again.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The headline here is not that half the country is being forbidden to leave on the basis of their sex, no, but that one man who identifies as blah blah blah

So basically people should prioritize coverage of issues properly.

Did I get that right?

Is this part of the satire?

Please do not falsely insert words when you quote me.

No, you didn't get that right. I made a jab at media coverage ignoring and glossing over the detention of millions of men, and talking about it only in the context of a trans woman who was also detained because he too is a man.

I also made a point against how society has and continues to appropriate men's bodies as tools of war.

EDIT: What I didn't expect was people suddenly being a-okay with the draft.

NICE TRY! Media coverage is still people choosing priorities of what topics to discuss, just like YOU.

Of course they are choosing. They were choosing to spotlight one man because he identifies as a woman, and do not mention the millions of other men detained because they too are men.

And I chose, as part of my OP, to point that out, among other things.

By the way, Don2, if you took me off ignore only to get back into your habit of going in to my threads just to say 'you and your priorities are evil and fucked', I'd prefer you put me on ignore again.

Non. I took you off ignore days ago to give a second chance. More unnecessary drama is what I am observing. Your post is criticizing bad priorities but your post is an example of bad priorities. You ought not refuse to admit it because your topic hinges on it.

 

[Metaphor]

The headline here is not that half the country is being forbidden to leave on the basis of their sex, no, but that one man who identifies as blah blah blah

So basically people should prioritize coverage of issues properly.

Did I get that right?

Is this part of the satire?

Please do not falsely insert words when you quote me.

No, you didn't get that right. I made a jab at media coverage ignoring and glossing over the detention of millions of men, and talking about it only in the context of a trans woman who was also detained because he too is a man.

I also made a point against how society has and continues to appropriate men's bodies as tools of war.

EDIT: What I didn't expect was people suddenly being a-okay with the draft.

NICE TRY! Media coverage is still people choosing priorities of what topics to discuss, just like YOU.

Of course they are choosing. They were choosing to spotlight one man because he identifies as a woman, and do not mention the millions of other men detained because they too are men.

And I chose, as part of my OP, to point that out, among other things.

By the way, Don2, if you took me off ignore only to get back into your habit of going in to my threads just to say 'you and your priorities are evil and fucked', I'd prefer you put me on ignore again.

Non. I took you off ignore days ago to give a second chance. More unnecessary drama is what I am observing. Your post is criticizing bad priorities but your post is an example of bad priorities. You ought not refuse to admit it because your topic hinges on it.

It is your opinion that my post has 'bad priorities', as if pushing back against a harmful ideology that has near universal support amongst the mainstream news media and popular media were a 'bad' priority. As if discussing the (single-sex) draft is something that should be discussed only if you want to discuss it.

If you are not interested in discussing them, then don't. But stop coming into my threads just to call me morally bankrupt. Apart from everything else, that's just rude.

 

[steve_bank]

The left wants us to view men and women as equals in all ways. No prefences or bias.

That is one thing. Metaphor has tunnel vision.

Culturally women represent the continuation of the species. In the case of Ukraine I'd say at least aprtly it is about perpetrating the lines. Women are staying to fight. I watched an interview with aUkrainian woman in Poland who is going back to fight. Women are not being excluded from combat.

A thought experiment.

You are in the middle of a wild fore heading towards you There are men. women, and children. A buss shows up with limited seats. Woud you give up your set for a woman who did not get on? Shoud the seats be given based n prportion of men and women in the crowd waithing to get out?

A more simple one. As a guy in daily life out in the world do you ever give deference to womn, such as going through a door?

All things considered considering what is going on invoking misogyny at this time is insensitive to say the least. It is not the time or place for it.

 

[laughing dog]

You know what I feel, laughing dog?…,,

Applying Occam’s razor, inept “satire” is the better theory consistent with the facts, and it lacks the irony of your theory.

No, it isn't a better theory.

You are wrong. It does not require any suppositions or imputations about the abilities of your audience.

Yes, I already provided links, in the OP and in post 114.

Nope. I debunked the Op claim. The link in 114 refers to conscription in the breakaway republic, not Ukraine.

 

[Metaphor]

You are wrong. It does not require any suppositions or imputations about the abilities of your audience.

No, it requires a supposition about the quality of my satire. And laughing dog, as you are somebody who does not know the meaning of many commonly used words, nor seems capable of appreciating satire, I would not come to you for evaluation of my writing.

Nope. I debunked the Op claim. The link in 114 refers to conscription in the breakaway republic, not Ukraine.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You are wrong. It does not require any suppositions or imputations about the abilities of your audience.

No, it requires a supposition about the quality of my satire. And laughing dog, as you are somebody who does not know the meaning of many commonly used words, nor seems capable of appreciating satire, I would not come to you for evaluation of my writing.

Nope. I debunked the Op claim. The link in 114 refers to conscription in the breakaway republic, not Ukraine.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

Would you agree that if Russia takes over Ukraine, there will be zero rights for anyone in Ukriane? You understand right when dictatorships like Russia claim that there are no gays or trans in their beloved country? You know what's going on there right?

 

[laughing dog]

[QUOTE="Metaphor, post: 989552[]
No, it requires a supposition about the quality of my satire.[/quote] No, it is based on the observed responses to your “satire”.

Ah , more inept pedantry.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Irrelevant to the issue of conscription.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

It is either incredibly disingenuous or fucking stupid to equate the legitimate government of Ukraine with the breakaway “republics” in order to avoid admitting a mistake about your claim about conscription for all men 18 to 60.

 

[Emily Lake]

On the other hand... seeing so very many skeptical progressives make posts in support of a single-sex draft just so they can try to stick it to Met is really quite entertaining.

Ukraine doesn't have a single sex draft but Russia does.

Are you just going to argue semantics here? Ukraine is conscripting males - and only males - age 16 to 60. If you don't want to call that a "draft", fine, I don't think there's a material difference in effect. But at least have the integrity to engage with the actual content and meaning, instead of handwaving it away because you can pretend that the wrong word makes a huge difference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IIDB is so fucking weird.

I saw that article yesterday elsewhere, and I gave a bit of side-eye to CNN for misplaced priorities. I mean, you've got thousands and thousands of people fleeing the region, widespread draft, and many deaths... And the focus is that Ukraine isn't alphabet-add-on friendly? Seems... irrelevant to me. But that's my opinion.

On the other hand... seeing so very many skeptical progressives make posts in support of a single-sex draft just so they can try to stick it to Met is really quite entertaining.



The impulse to hate on Met is really, really strong here.

Metaphor's dog just got hit by a car and they are pontificating about a flea.

Sure, the trans issue is a bit small fish at the moment, but some people seem to want to make serious disasters about their Problem Du Jour, whether the writer of the article or this OP.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also, being single sex is not the draft's main problem. The main problem with the draft is that it is immoral.

Meh. I don't necessarily ascribe morality to it. It think it's a violation of some basic freedom of belief, sure. Mostly, I think it's a bad idea for more pragmatic reasons: People who are forced or coerced into fighting for a cause aren't particularly dedicated. I'd much rather have a force comprised of volunteers, people who are fighting for something they believe in.

In the event that a draft or conscription is actually occurring, however, I have an objection to it being single sex. I get that it's an easy shorthand sorter - one way or another, the conscripts need to be people who are moderately expendable, they need to not be leaving children uncared for. The simplistic assumption that women are care-givers and men are expendable is easy to put in place, and is probably good enough for a fast response.

I'd prefer something a bit more purpose driven. Say, a policy that stipulates that a draft/conscription cannot leave a child or a dependent without a caregiver, with no consideration to the sex of the caregiver - leave that up to the individuals involved. But that's also going to be a lot more complicated to administer. You'd have to look at families, identify single-parent households for exclusion, and for two-parent households, you'd have to put some method in place to allow the parents to select who stays with the kids and who goes to fight.

That's the kind of thing that would probably work better if it's a formalized draft registration policy that is set up and maintained during peacetime, to be enacted during wartime. But trying to do that on the fly just isn't feasible.

Perhaps a more hammer-and-nail approach: if a person doesn't have children, they get conscripted.

At the end of the day, it's all academic for us to discuss in this thread. But I do think it's worthy of some discussion, it guides thoughts on how to alter draft eligibility rules for future conflicts so as to make them reasonable and appropriate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are wrong. It does not require any suppositions or imputations about the abilities of your audience.

No, it requires a supposition about the quality of my satire. And laughing dog, as you are somebody who does not know the meaning of many commonly used words, nor seems capable of appreciating satire, I would not come to you for evaluation of my writing.

I feel a Lloyd Bentsen coming on here. Metaphor, your satire wasn't good, it wasn't even "satire". At best it was a joke. Satire isn't easy. Satire requires accurate reflection on what is happening and twisting it into a reflective nonsense. You tried to make light of refugees fleeing for their lives. There isn't much humor to pick away from that.

The best I can come with is "As women and children head out on holiday out of that nation by the hundreds of thousands, Ukrainian males encouraged to find appreciation with arts and crafts with glassworks and metal fabrication *insert images of Molotov cocktail and guns*."

So please, if you must do satire, you actually have to try.

Nope. I debunked the Op claim. The link in 114 refers to conscription in the breakaway republic, not Ukraine.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

Ukraine is fighting for its actual existence as a free state. It is doing it against a nation that, at least should, has a massive military with an incredible technological edge. The only way to defeat them is attrition and throwing bodies in their way. If you wish they be throwing women in the way to, so be it. But as far as I can see, Ukraine is saying "no thanks" to no one willing to help.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

You'd be surprised how incredibly effective basic household cleansers can be in the hands of someone with some decent chemistry knowledge.

 

[Emily Lake]

Anyway, my overall take with this thread is that the most important principle of several posters is to hate on Met whenever they have an opportunity.

 

[TomC]

Anyway, my overall take with this thread is that the most important principle of several posters is to hate on Met whenever they have an opportunity.

@Metaphor is the OP.
Managing to combine trans issues, draft issues, gender issues, and the disaster in Ukraine.
All in one post.

If you like being the object of ire, it's a masterpiece.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I am opposed to the draft—except in some emergencies.

Then you are not opposed to the draft.

Yes I am. But I’m not an absolutist. There are very few scenarios that I can come up with that justify a draft. But I’m old enough to know that the world can come up with reasons I never considered.

Anyway, my overall take with this thread is that the most important principle of several posters is to hate on Met whenever they have an opportunity.

to be fair, he usually starts it.

 

[Toni]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

Obviously chemistry is not your thing.