MRAs would rather complain about “male disposability” than work to enable women to serve in combat
Men’s Rights Activists regularly complain that it is mostly men who serve in the armed forces, and that it is mostly male soldiers who are killed and injured in service to their country in wartime. MRAs also complain that, in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.
MRAs love to cite the dominance of men in the armed forces as a prime example of what they call “male disposability,” and somehow manage to blame feminists for it all.
But it’s not feminists who are trying to keep women from becoming soldiers, or serving in combat. While some MRAs support the idea of women serving in the army, and having to register for the draft the same as men do, many others scoff at the very notion of women as soldiers, mocking their alleged female “weakness” and in some cases denigrating the service of women now in the armed forces as being equivalent to attending “day care camp.” (Not exactly.) These MRAs may complain that men bear the brunt of the costs of war. But they don’t actually want women to serve.
Not that it makes much of a difference, because the MRAs who do supposedly want women to share the same responsibilities as men aren’t doing shit about it. You know who is? Feminists. The National Organization for Women, while opposing the draft, has long argued that if registration is required of men, it should also be required of women. NOW has also opposed the ban on female soliders serving in combat. (Not that it’s easy to draw a clear line between combat and non-combat positions on the contemporary battlefields.)
Meanwhile, a group called the Molly Pitcher Project, made up of University of Virginia law students and headed by feminist law professor Anne Coughlin, is assisting two female soldiers who are now suing the Pentagon in an attempt to lift the combat ban.
Do you want to know who is opposing them – aside from the Pentagon’s lawyers? Take a look at some of the comments posted in response to a Los Angeles Times article on the lawsuit. Note: The quotes below are pretty egregious; some deal with military rape in a really offensive way. (Thanks to Pecunium for pointing me to them.)
These aren’t “cherry-picked” from hundreds of comments; these are the bulk of the comments that were left on the article.
Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.
If MRAs, or at least some of them, truly want a world in which men and women share equally in the responsibilities of military service (and both have equal opportunties for military leadership), they need to challenge the misogynists — within their movement and without — who argue that women simply aren’t fit for the battlefield. And they need to support the feminists who are actually trying to make a difference — instead of standing on the sidelines crying foul.
I don’t hold out much hope that this will ever happen. MRAs are much too enamored with their fantasies of male martyrhood.
Posted on June 1, 2012, in a voice for men, actual activism, antifeminism, feminism, homophobia, internal debate, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, paul elam, rapey, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 284 Comments.
A lot of queer groups thought DADT was better than the older system of disciplinary discharges, including dishonorable discharges, as they resulted in worse after effects than administrative discharges. There were also hopes that it would somewhat curb anti-queer witch hunts and interrogations. The fact that he’s proclaiming it as worse when thousands of queer people would suffer greated punishment under the old rules is just one more piece of erasure and dismissal of queer experiences. Opposing a half-measure like DADT in 1993 as a hetero who supports the sodomy rules is not exactly a progressive stance anyways in all likelihood.
VoIP — I think you misread my original comment, it started with “Either…” — if it doesn’t mean either of the obvious readings, then Pecunium is the only one who can clarify.
Male disposability goes a lot deeper than just men in the military, it’s a perception that burdens men in many avenues of life. Should MRA’s be in favor of women being allowed in combat positions if they have to live up to the same exact physical standards as men? Yes, I think they should if they’re for equal rights, but since they’re men’s rights activists and don’t exactly have a ton of resources at the moment, I don’t see why it should be a top priority for them, especially since there’s already plenty of influential groups fighting for it, as you pointed out. Women getting allowed into combat positions doesn’t exactly solve the perception of male disposability pervasive throughout all of society. Actually, I’m not even sure it does anything to solve it.
As far as selective service registration goes, you can call it a formality because you don’t think the draft will ever be brought back, but as long as a draft is possible, it’s not a formality, it’s there because it might happen, however unlikely in the near future. If it was just a formality, it wouldn’t exist. When I filled out applications for my driver’s license, when I registered to vote, when I applied for university, I was told on those forms that I had to be registered for the selective service, or else. That’s not a formality, that’s once you turn 18, you can’t legally do anything until you register for the draft. It hasn’t been made illegal, and women are not required to register for a draft of non-combat service, so you can’t claim that the reason women don’t have to do it is because they don’t have the right to fight in combat positions.
“in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.”
Whether or not there is actual conscription, a man who does not register is a FUGITIVE. He forfeits eligibility for financial aid and job retraining, just to name a few of the penalties.
These things will follow him the entirety of his days - not just while he is considered to be of military age.
Is there ANY requirement made of women that parallels that?
I don’t think so, so it comes across as particularly obnoxious when women become shrill and indignant over their “body ownership” and the tiniest threats to their legal status as lords of humanity.