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

[Keith&Co.]

I think the important question here is how the defenders are digging slit trenches. Is there one per deployed unit? Or are there three: male, female, woke?*
How can we possibly evaluate the Ukranians' desire for democratic freedom without knowing their stance on bathrooms?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have a far bigger problem with the State appropriating men's bodies than I do with missing out on coffee, but I suppose we include different things in our moral sphere of concern.

If you and I currently lived in Ukraine, I very much doubt that our major concerns right now would be the state appropriating men's bodies or missing out on coffee. When we are comfortable, it's easy to judge other who are desperate.

It beggars belief that you can imagine so. If I currently lived in the Ukraine, the idea that I would be forced to stay behind (and probably die) instead of having the option of fleeing with my family would concern me greatly.

Of all the bemoaning done over isolated situations thousands of miles from your home, whining about tyranny... it is funny to read that you think you wouldn't be concerned with fighting actual tyranny at your doorstep.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have a far bigger problem with the State appropriating men's bodies than I do with missing out on coffee, but I suppose we include different things in our moral sphere of concern.

If you and I currently lived in Ukraine, I very much doubt that our major concerns right now would be the state appropriating men's bodies or missing out on coffee. When we are comfortable, it's easy to judge other who are desperate.

It beggars belief that you can imagine so. If I currently lived in the Ukraine, the idea that I would be forced to stay behind (and probably die) instead of having the option of fleeing with my family would concern me greatly.

Of all the bemoaning done over isolated situations thousands of miles from your home, whining about tyranny... it is funny to read that you think you wouldn't be concerned with fighting actual tyranny at your doorstep.

Oh my gosh that's a great point that I totally didn't see at first. If Russia takes over Ukraine - there will be absolutely zero personal rights. None. Ukrainians taking a tiny portion of personal rights away for a short term in desperation pales to the rights that will be lost under Mad Vlad.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the headline here is “Really? This is what catches the eye in Ukraine?”.

Apparently you don't care when the State appropriates men's bodies. Some of us do care, laughing dog.

Are you saying those Russian soldiers aren't conscripts?

 

[ZiprHead]

I've always been against the draft also. But most the wars that my country gets involved in are wars of choice. Probably not Afghanistan. But the Ukrainians are fighting for their homes. Some are forced to vacate on foot with young kids in the snow. I'd give them incredible latitude and grace. Many women are fighting in Ukraine also btw. Most will be killed.

I have no problem with men or women staying if they want to. I have a problem with Ukraine forbidding men from leaving.

I have a lot of problems that piss me off. I'm upset that my wife forgot to buy coffee yesterday (have to drink tea this morning). And then it's raining at my local ski mountain. So, can't ski. God dammit. But I'm dang sure not going to judge every action that a country makes that is under threat of total annihilation.

I have a far bigger problem with the State appropriating men's bodies than I do with missing out on coffee, but I suppose we include different things in our moral sphere of concern.

Irony dies again.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the headline here is “Really? This is what catches the eye in Ukraine?”.

Apparently you don't care when the State appropriates men's bodies. Some of us do care, laughing dog.

The OP disguises that alleged concern well behind the blatantly false use of the term “expel” and the singular focus on one of your boring targets of ire - a trans person.

Sorry, your “satire” missed your alleged mark.

 

[TomC]

Is the word forbidden any more accurate than expelled?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Is the word forbidden any more accurate than expelled?
Tom

No because women and children were not forbidden to go or to stsy.

 

[TomC]

Is the word forbidden any more accurate than expelled?
Tom

No because women and children were not forbidden to go or to stsy.

I wonder if anyone was.
Prioritizing other groups before combat age males isn't quite the same. Since nobody is being expelled, I strongly suspect that few are forbidden either.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Women join Ukraine's army in huge numbers as Russian threat looms

According to The Wall Street Journal, women make up 15 per cent of the military force in Ukraine.

I am against the State discriminating by sex in instituting the draft.

Then rejoice, dude. Once again, you have your panties in a bunch over something that just is not so.
From December, when it became apparent that Pootey was going to try another land grab in Ukraine:
Ukraine Requires Women to Register for Military Conscription as Russia Threat Looms

... now, what were you saying, Meta? Just talking out your ass?

 

[Swammerdami]

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 a woman is somehow more especially hard done by when the same rule applies to him.

So that's the "headline" hunh? Wow. [The 'wow' is satire.] CBS is not one of the news sources I consult (except for Stephen Colbert's Late Show!); but if I typed 'cbs.com' or whatever it is, would I see this story on their front page? (Never mind whether it is the 'headline' or not.)

Or is this story what turns up if one Googles 'Help me exploit the tragedy in Ukraine to feed my diatribes against LGBT"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We need to support the defeminazification of Ukraine.

 

[Elixir]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

 

[ZiprHead]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

 

[Elixir]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

So, Meta’s indignation might have some basis after all. “They’re not as progressive as we are” has some resonance.
OTOH it’s not clear why anyone would expect a former Soviet bloc country to lead the way … the fact that Ukraine does lead the way among former Soviet holdings, is sufficient to gain my respect and admiration.

 

[TomC]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

LGBs have always been allowed.

Openly LGB, versus closet case LGB, is a whole different issue.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

So, Meta’s indignation might have some basis after all. “They’re not as progressive as we are” has some resonance.

The good news is that as the Russians get closer, the defenders get more progressive. They'll give guns to anyone that can hold it. It's more desperation than enlightenment, but they'll just wipe out ageism, sexism, all that shit goes into the same rubble pile as the churches, libraries, Holocaust Museum....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

LGBs have always been allowed.

No, they most emphatically have not always been allowed.
They've always been present. They've always served. They've probably been overrepresented among the services. But you can't say 'always allowed.'
While some individuals would turn a blind eye, you couldn't count on it as a policy, even at a command level. If you got caught and someone went snakeshit, the system was on the shitty side. Even if the skipper was tolerant, he couldn't make his unit a tolerant unit.

 

[TomC]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

LGBs have always been allowed.

No, they most emphatically have not been allowed.
They've been present. They've served. They've probably been overrepresented among the services. But you can't say 'allowed.'
While some individuals would turn a blind eye, you couldn't count on it as a policy, even at a command level. If you got caught and someone went snakeshit, the system was on the shitty side. Even if the skipper was tolerant, he couldn't make his unit a tolerant unit.

I disagree. But all I have to go on, from the standpoint of "military experience", is my nephew.
He's recently retired Army E-8. Multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seriously het. Seriously military.
He hated DADT.

He hated it because it meant protecting his men from the enemy while also protecting them from the Army.
Maybe he's an outlier, I don't know.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just curious... does Au allow gays to serve in their military?

LGBs were allowed in 1992, Ts allowed in 2010.

LGBs have always been allowed.

No, they most emphatically have not been allowed.
They've been present. They've served. They've probably been overrepresented among the services. But you can't say 'allowed.'
While some individuals would turn a blind eye, you couldn't count on it as a policy, even at a command level. If you got caught and someone went snakeshit, the system was on the shitty side. Even if the skipper was tolerant, he couldn't make his unit a tolerant unit.

I disagree. But all I have to go on, from the standpoint of "military experience", is my nephew.
He's recently retired Army E-8. Multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seriously het. Seriously military.
He hated DADT.

He hated it because it meant protecting his men from the enemy while also protecting them from the Army.
Maybe he's an outlier, I don't know.
Tom

So your 'always' goes back as far as, what, Clinton?
Yeah, i hated DADT also. Figured if we were going to decriminalize homosexuality, we shouldn't still have to hide it.

But that's just it. They still had to hide it. Not as stringently, or with as much paranoia as before, but they still could not talk about an amusing anecdote during sex the same way the straights could.
And before DADT, they had to hide it completely.

Because it wasn't always allowed.