The Misandry of Modern Warfare

Post Reply New Topic

When I look back at all the major wars that America has been in in recent history (Vietnam War, Iraq War ect.) I realize that many of them have been incredibly misandrist. All of them have been mostly designed to appeal to men and many have sent men overseas for an ignoble cause to die a horrible death or come home with PTSD.

I want any "men's rights activists" reading this to remember it in case war heats up in the near future.

When you say if war heat's up do you mean overseas or domestic?

Men of lower-classes are viewed to be the first expendables. You don't need a lot of sperm producers in order to re-populate a country, ovaries are more rare.

And that was the case since....ever, not just in modern warfare.

Are you planning on making war more unisex?

So in a nut shell this is the original post:

No male person ever fought in a war until just recently.
Now they have this wierd idea that men can be solidiers and fight as well as women!

And the OP doesnt know where this novel idea came from.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Eh, warfare affects women as well. Rape is often a weapon used in war and the social effects of warfare can hurt women for decades afterwards. You do know about the rape epidemic that continues in DR Congo? A lot of the rapists are former Interahamwe. The Rwandan genocide was 17 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_vio ... _the_Congo

It is neither being misandrist nor misogynist to consider it better that women should not be on the front lines of a war, especially when the enemies we're fighting have such a low consideration of women.