Today's Google doodle oppresses men!

[Derec]

Who cares what Hilary Cunton (amirite!) has to say!

After summer 2016 hopefully nobody.
And as to your deliberate misspelling:

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, I bet that many and maybe most Americans believe that the ERA is part of Federal law, even though it is not because 20 States chose to oppose equal rights for women by not ratifying or rescinding their initial ratification (and continuing this stance during the last 30 years of continued ERA efforts).

Guess which States?

Hint: Think of states against Emancipation, equal rights for homosexuals, and generally supportive of authoritarian bigotry, theocracy, and therefore the modern GOP. This will get you the vast majority of the 20, with the only 1 notable surprise.

Show

 

[ronburgundy]

It makes it clear that she was referring to those who experience the harmful consequences of war as "victims", rather than those that die and who therefore are no longer anything and experience nothing. And since any men who willingly fight in war are, by definition, not victims but rather victimizers, she is arguably correct about that women more often experience the harmful consequences of wars that they do not perpetrate.

Yeah, my point is that it's idiotic to say survivors are the primary victims of a violent death. The context does not fix this. It's a stupid thing to say.

IOW, she used "victim" as shorthand for those who experience the hardships of wars that they did not participate in, then immediately explicated what she was referring to.
Its a poor word choice, but a meaningless error that in no way reflects an attitude that dismisses the men's lives lost as insignificant. Its mostly a poor word choice because it opens the door for distortion of intent by true idiots who don't know how to use semantic context to interpret discourse or dishonest partisans who deliberately suppress that context.

 

[repoman]

I would have to read the text of the ERA and an unbiased report to have a credible opinion on it.

At any rate i found this: kind of funny. Home and hearth is instinct for women. Watching the gates is instinct for men.

 

[Toni]

Who cares what Hilary Cunton (amirite!) has to say!

After summer 2016 hopefully nobody.
And as to your deliberate misspelling:

Hard to believe that you are single and not thrilled with that choice.

 

[prideandfall]

And Derec has successfully derailed YET ANOTHER THREAD to rant/whine about one of his two favorite subjects - his hatred of women

it's getting to the point where blaming D, d, or PD for derails is like blaming heroin for the fact that you sold your house and left your family to go live in a heroin den - at some point, you people need to take responsibility for the fact you keep feeding it.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, my point is that it's idiotic to say survivors are the primary victims of a violent death. The context does not fix this. It's a stupid thing to say.

IOW, she used "victim" as shorthand for those who experience the hardships of wars that they did not participate in, then immediately explicated what she was referring to.
Its a poor word choice, but a meaningless error that in no way reflects an attitude that dismisses the men's lives lost as insignificant. Its mostly a poor word choice because it opens the door for distortion of intent by true idiots who don't know how to use semantic context to interpret discourse or dishonest partisans who deliberately suppress that context.

She said women are the primary victims of war. It's right there in the quote for you to read. She is placing them above all others (most notably the men who actually are dead) in their victimness. This is what the word "primary" fucking means.

Yes, it's a poor word choice because using the word results in a point that is almost impossibly stupid. She could at least say "well, I misspoke there...." but her reflexive defenders are consciously doubling down on the stupid.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

IOW, she used "victim" as shorthand for those who experience the hardships of wars that they did not participate in, then immediately explicated what she was referring to.
Its a poor word choice, but a meaningless error that in no way reflects an attitude that dismisses the men's lives lost as insignificant. Its mostly a poor word choice because it opens the door for distortion of intent by true idiots who don't know how to use semantic context to interpret discourse or dishonest partisans who deliberately suppress that context.

She said women are the primary victims of war. It's right there in the quote for you to read. She is placing them above all others (most notably the men who actually are dead) in their victimness. This is what the word "primary" fucking means.

Yes, it's a poor word choice because using the word results in a point that is almost impossibly stupid. She could at least say "well, I misspoke there...." but her reflexive defenders are consciously doubling down on the stupid.

The alternative is that you are calling voluntary soldiers victims, half (or more) of whom are the bad guys.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And since any men who willingly fight in war are, by definition, not victims but rather victimizers, she is arguably correct about that women more often experience the harmful consequences of wars that they do not perpetrate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "willingly", but if country A attacks country B, would you count the members of B's armed forces (or conscripts who are nonetheless willing to defend their country) who are maimed or killed as victims?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And since any men who willingly fight in war are, by definition, not victims but rather victimizers, she is arguably correct about that women more often experience the harmful consequences of wars that they do not perpetrate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "willingly", but if country A attacks country B, would you count the members of B's armed forces (or conscripts who are nonetheless willing to defend their country) who are maimed or killed as victims?

See post#10:

Are men who voluntarily sign up as ISIS soldiers "victims?"

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not sure what you mean by "willingly", but if country A attacks country B, would you count the members of B's armed forces (or conscripts who are nonetheless willing to defend their country) who are maimed or killed as victims?

See post#10:

Are men who voluntarily sign up as ISIS soldiers "victims?"

No, they're not (well, they might be if, say, their enemies capture them and torture them to death, for example, but that aside), but that's not relevant to my question to ronburgundy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

See post#10:

Are men who voluntarily sign up as ISIS soldiers "victims?"

No, they're not, but that's not relevant to my question to ronburgundy.

At least you answered the question.

Derec, see how questions can be answered.

 

[fromderinside]

Because that part is the interpretation. The exact quote is:
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
I.e. those me who lose their actual lives in combat do not matter as much as their female relatives.

Really? So you think that in a male dominated culture losing their only male doesn't matter more than the man giving up his life for his principles? Practical consequences. Surely you don't fear having to find a way to buy bread. As for who is more important it is certainly the one who brings forth new copies.

 

[Toni]

IOW, she used "victim" as shorthand for those who experience the hardships of wars that they did not participate in, then immediately explicated what she was referring to.
Its a poor word choice, but a meaningless error that in no way reflects an attitude that dismisses the men's lives lost as insignificant. Its mostly a poor word choice because it opens the door for distortion of intent by true idiots who don't know how to use semantic context to interpret discourse or dishonest partisans who deliberately suppress that context.

She said women are the primary victims of war. It's right there in the quote for you to read. She is placing them above all others (most notably the men who actually are dead) in their victimness. This is what the word "primary" fucking means.

Yes, it's a poor word choice because using the word results in a point that is almost impossibly stupid. She could at least say "well, I misspoke there...." but her reflexive defenders are consciously doubling down on the stupid.

If you consider men as being the primary power holders and the primary decision makers, then war would be primarily the choice of men. Certainly everyone is aware that soldiers who go to war risk life and limb and can be expected that they will lose their lives in service of whatever cause or power or authority they believe that war serves. Their deaths, in this light, can be seen as noble sacrifices, not as victimization.

Men don't seem to like to be seen as victims. With a one or two posters on this board as notable exceptions.

Please note: this is not how I see war and it's not how I think most people see war and it's not even how I think Hillary Clinton sees war.

I also see it as unsurprising that Hillary Clinton or any other politician would say something stupid or something that seems pretty stupid when taken out of context and trotted out to the world.

 

[laughing dog]

You didn't notice she repeated that three times?

You missed the point of my observation - that fact is irrelevant.

If you are willing to twist yourself into mental pretzels. Kind of like with biblical apologetics.

Nah - see ronburgundy's explanation as but one example.

Certainly much safer than in the meatgrinder. Hence - relative safety.

Right because it is never the case that civilian casualties exceed the military ones.

 

[Derec]

So you think that in a male dominated culture losing their only male doesn't matter more than the man giving up his life for his principles?

I say losing your life is worse. And not everybody on the field supports these "principles" (ever heard of conscription) nor do civilians left behind oppose it.

As for who is more important it is certainly the one who brings forth new copies.

Female supremacy is usually well hidden among feminists - plausible deniability and all that. You dare say it explicitly!

 

[Derec]

If you consider men as being the primary power holders and the primary decision makers, then war would be primarily the choice of men.

Not the same men. Again this collective guilt and collective punishment nonsense.

Certainly everyone is aware that soldiers who go to war risk life and limb and can be expected that they will lose their lives in service of whatever cause or power or authority they believe that war serves. Their deaths, in this light, can be seen as noble sacrifices, not as victimization.

If that is the case then their female relatives are not victims either if they support the same cause.

Men don't seem to like to be seen as victims. With a one or two posters on this board as notable exceptions.

And feminists like to victimize men. See how they defend women like Mary Winkler or Lorena Bobbit.

Please note: this is not how I see war and it's not how I think most people see war and it's not even how I think Hillary Clinton sees war.

Yet she said it. Then again, she said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia and that she was dead broke in 2000, so you can't really go by what she says.

 

[ronburgundy]

IOW, she used "victim" as shorthand for those who experience the hardships of wars that they did not participate in, then immediately explicated what she was referring to.
Its a poor word choice, but a meaningless error that in no way reflects an attitude that dismisses the men's lives lost as insignificant. Its mostly a poor word choice because it opens the door for distortion of intent by true idiots who don't know how to use semantic context to interpret discourse or dishonest partisans who deliberately suppress that context.

She said women are the primary victims of war. It's right there in the quote for you to read. She is placing them above all others (most notably the men who actually are dead) in their victimness. This is what the word "primary" fucking means.

Yes, she said the word "primary" which has no clear and objective meaning without context. It does not mean that the type of harm done to women is qualitatively greater than the type of harm done to soldiers. First, soldiers are not even included in what she is referring to and are typically NOT included as "victims" but rather are referred to as casualties. This makes perfect sense, because the soldier are the ones' actively engaged in causing the outcomes of war and active participants are not typically referred to as "victims", even when they are harmed in unfortunate ways that everyone agree is a bad thing. In addition to casualties being irrelevant, "primary" could and likely does in this context merely refer to the relative number of women and men who comprise the non-combatants that experience severe hardships resulting from war, and not a qualitative comparison about the severity of each individuals hardships. IOW, it means the same thing as "Rush fans are primarily men", which in no way suggests that the women that are Rush fans are qualitatively less fans than the men.

Not only is it common and reasonable not to include military personnel among "victims of war" (which is disctinct from "casualties"), but her explication, which is also "right there in the quote for you to read" is clearly not referring to deaths in general (military or otherwise), since plenty of women die due to war and yet her explication makes no reference to those women who die, only to those that live to suffer the results of war. If your dead, your not suffering. She used "victim" as a shorthand for non-combatants who suffer the results of wars. In that notion of what she meant and explained she meant by "victims of war", she is correct that women are the primary "victims".

Only severe ignorance or dishonesty would lead to any other interpretation.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet she said it. Then again, she said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia and that she was dead broke in 2000, so you can't really go by what she says.

Time to provide references sir.

 

[Toni]

Men don't seem to like to be seen as victims. With a one or two posters on this board as notable exceptions.

And feminists like to victimize men. See how they defend women like Mary Winkler or Lorena Bobbit.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

Derec proves my point again.