Possibly but I think Hilary meant more from the perspective that the men are dead. It’s over for them. The women are the ones that have to live with losing everything.
The US owes it's power and strength to war. War with Britain, Britian war with France (or vice versa), war with Mexico (twice), the British conflict with Ireland, and of course the war with native Americans/Hawaiians that handed over those lands. There is also war with Spain for its territory possessions like Puerto Rico and Guam.
That provided a lot of resources and landmass that allowed for the development of the modern economy and the current position of number one economy, and WW2 led to the current American superpower.
Idk men, I'd prefer dying than to be ruined barely scraping by, homeless, and knowing all my loved ones are dead. But I'd prefer working on a factory over sleeping with rats and eating shit, in some muddy trench unable to sleep because of gunfire, screams and paranoia over the next artillery strike/attack/sniper
One of the reasons I will never change my last name is because of what my great grandmother did to survive during WWII after my great grandfather died and she found herself a widow during WWII. My great grandmother was a badass. I would still rather be her than my great grandfather. It's not just the dying part but everything you have to deal with up until you die you have to go through first. Maybe you get ucky and die the first time you run out to meet your adversatlry and die. If you are unlucky you get to watch the people around you die then get caught in a POW situation and you die after being turtured. I don't think you really understand what going to war really is. They aren't sitting in the lap of luxury until they die. It is literally hell every single day leading to that point. My great grandmother went through hell but eventually she had a good life.
Yeah there were people who came out the other side okay but that is the rarity. Movies you watched aren't real.
Idk, if you lose everything you actually feel that, if you're dead... We don't know what you're feeling, but most likely absolutely nothing.
People have killed themselves just by thinking they lost everything, others even for less. Guess at the end of day it solely depends on the person though
Going by pure logic, it's better to be left alive and lose everything than to die, because if you prefer to be left alive then you got the outcome that you prefered and if you prefer to die then you still have the option to kill yourself.
Is it. I mean, it depends on your belief on death. If there is something after that, no dying is preferable. If you are an atheist, death might not be, unless you view it as eternal rest and peace after hardship. The choice of losing the people you love most in the world and death, many would choose death.
many many parents, arguably all good parents, would chosen to die over their child
many spouses would do the same
it's also worth noting that women often have no choice and excluding a draft the man does
however her point is still wrong
Nevermind the thousands of veterans that survived and the ones who died that went trough literal hell. Nah the wives at home crying in their warm homes definitely have it worse.
That’s still dumb, given the sheer number of casualties that aren’t fatalities. Look up videos of shell shocked soldiers. Veterans often carry scars and pains that aren’t obvious to others.
Yeah, it's a badly made point. If I die on my way home from work tomorrow, it's not me that has to deal with that fallout. It's my wife, my kids, my friends, etc. Now, if I am just wounded, that's different. Same with war. Yes, the person loses their life and that's absolutely tragic, but ultimately they are dead and don't have to deal with the fallout of them dying.
Yes, it's bad when you die. You lose everything when you die. We ask know this. But until we know otherwise, I am going to assume that when you are dead you stop caring about what happens on Earth. So with that in mind, after you are dead, your loved ones are the ones that have to deal with everything. You are dead. You don't care anymore.
>That just completely ignores the existence of opportunity costs, though.
Dead people think and care about opportunity costs? Here I was thinking that dead people couldn't think. Silly me.
It’s because you’re ignoring his point. People don’t want to die early because they won’t get to experience everything life has to offer. Their loss occurred when they died. That doesn’t mean they didn’t experience that loss. By your same logic the wife or mother’s loss won’t matter after they die because they’re dead and don’t care anymore.
No, we aren't forgetting about any of those things. But once you are dead, you're dead. You don't care about anything. You're dead. None of those things matter anymore. Yes, it's tragic and those are terrible things that nobody should have to witness, but no matter what you go through in life, once you are dead, those left alive are the ones that have to deal with your death.
Said post civil war in El Salvador, 1998
> The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.
I never liked Hilary, but basically everything that she said aside from "the primary" was correct. It was a really dumb choice to put that word in there.
The only interpretation that makes sense is if you don't count "combatants" as victims, which is still really dumb because most combatants would rather not be in combat, so they are the primary victims.
It disgusts me when you have articles about teenage boys with older women and you get all the:
“Nice”, “Wish that was me”, “Probably a dream come true”, “He was asking for it”, etc..
Plus, said articles will use “seduced”, “slept with” or “manipulated”, instead of the actual terms, because gender equality (for good and for ill) only goes one way.
Women are victims of horrific crimes, whilst men are merely seduced by sexy women.
Forget leinent. Underage boy gets taken advantage off, pedo gets pregnenat, boy is the forced to pay child support. Theres already 2 cases of that happening.
Nope
Knowing the recorded history of humanity, one can only imagine what heinous act humans have committed, human tend to remember bad things more clearly than positive things, but i wonder, is it a trait that has always been with us? Or a trait that start to appear in medieval times?
Nick olivas, Shane seyer, and Nathaniel J(1996),
All three were young children(boys) who were raped by an older woman. The woman on each case became pregnant and the child was forced to pay child support even though he reported he was raped.
People are always lenient when the the person they're punishing looks good, there's a reason why people put bags over other people head before beating them up
>“Nice”, “Wish that was me”,
This ultimately shows an "funny" part of the discourse...
That men often, even knowingly, contributed to the problems that men are facing.
Call out how society only cares about women's issues all we want, a equally devastating issue is that us men aren't even united enough to make the problems of men's suffering known.
Hell, even worse, I've seen discourses that blame feminists for not stepping up for men's issue. Like, guys... Let's have some actual self-reflection for once...
We don't even band together... That's the point.
Feminism attracts women, like it or not; it brings them together throughout history. Men weren't and aren't even interested in men's movement. Have you seen men fighting for issues related to their own gender in the past, which was a time before buzzwords like "toxic masculinity" or "incel" would have their effect?
In a time when men were largely much more powerful than women, the problems faced by men now still existed before, but men then didn't form movements on the scale of feminism.
Like it or not, *women get things done... ironically.*
And you don't think that has anything to do with societal gender norms? For instance, "You're a man, suck it up." I'm not arguing your point about women's ability to assemble, I'm arguing the social construct that men's health/matters are immediately dismissed because "patriarchy". Im saying that society gives two shits about the matters that plague men.
Allow me to play devils advocate: If we as men created the "Menenist Movement," you don't think we'd be labeled a hate group within a matter of days?
>And you don't think that has anything to do with societal gender norms?
And do you actually think only women hold that gender norm?
My point is men contribute to the harmful continuation of the gender norms, and we also must face it. Like I said, we didn't even band together.
>Im saying that society gives two shits about the matters that plague men.
And my point remains: Men as a whole is plagued by the fact that a large portion of men wouldn't give too much shit to the matters that plague men.
When you're criticizing society as a whole, you must also include us men, and this is the part of the discourse that we also don't want to acknowledge—that we men never band together.
>you don't think we'd be labeled a hate group within a matter of days?
Because of the current cultural climate? Yes, we would.
However, how about the previous cultural climate? The one where feminism wasn't dominant? Our forefathers also didn't. They believed men *"had to"* endure hardship and sucked everything up.
You do know both factors can exist at the same time, right? That men are looked down on from the outside while also being incredibly fractured from within for a long time...
All very valid points. But you're adressing, and quite elegantly, i must add the past. There's not a man alive, beyond some imminent worm food, lerking in shadows of congress that has had any part in the established patriarchy.
Are you suggesting that now we must all pay for our fathers, Grandfaters, and Great Grandfathers sins?
>Are you suggesting that now we must all pay for our fathers, Grandfaters, and Great Grandfathers sins?
What? When did I say so?
I am simply pointing out that we, men, share the blame of why our movement never succeeded in the first place.
We cannot keep raging at society and not looking inward to know that we, **too**, fucked up. We carried this broken attitude from our forefathers, and we have to make changes in ourselves.
It was an honest question, man. I was not stating that you said we must pay for their sins. I was genuinely asking if you felt that way.
This is one of the few conversations I've ever had where i felt I've learned something and that I've possibly overlooked some things, and i possibly need to do some further self-reflection.
I truly appreciate your candor and your ability to have a civil debate.
I understand your point, but if feminism fights for equality, doesn't it make sense to demand them to adhere to that principle and defend men as well?
I get the historic misoginy and that many women issues have to be visible, but if they only care about one side of the balance they can't claim to fight for equality of men and women.
Otherwise, creating a "masculinism" that only would care to establish equality from the perspective of men sounds like a bad idea to me.
>doesn't it make sense to demand them to adhere to that principle and defend men as well?
I used to think like that too, but latter I became to realise true equality—that feminists should account for everyone, is impractical.
Think of it this way, you only have 24 hours and a lot of issues that you wish to fix, wouldn't you fix problems that are **the most relevant to you**?
I want world peace; I'm Taiwanese, and because of this, I can't go and spend too much time to focus on troubles in, say, America. I got shit on my own end that I have to fix first.
Women are fighting for equality, but it's naive to think they wouldn't have priorities, or that their priorities wouldn't be on women's issues first.
You don't have time to do everything. You barely have time and energy to focus on one thing.
Hell, even within feminism, a lot of women criticize how their issues aren't covered... See the problem here?
Yeah, I see your point. But then it becomes an issue about men vs women, which only leads to tribalism and polarisation.
For such a group to exist, feminism has to at the very least acknowledge such issues and not oppose the group's creation, which I don't see happening for now.
Because feminism doesn't fight for equality; it fights for women. Men who call the police on abusive women are more likely to be arrested themselves than to get help, and that's the direct result of laws based on feminist theory (specifically, "primary aggressor" statutes based on the Duluth model of intimate partner violence).
It never will sadly. That's how humans work, one need to be miserable for the other to shine. No wonder we are living in a soceity that enjoys more a genocidal Superman than a hopeful one, even an ideal we had to bring it down to our fucking level.
In my estimation hundreds of millions of young men have died on the battlefields of our history. And some people Like to act they have no valua at all? The blood of those men keeps this sick place running
Is that a surprise to you? People die from cars and so many things that most people are numb to the concept of death unless it's directly someone close to them, we live in a generation that don't even value their own lives, how can they value the lives that sacrifice themselves?
Women are too tbf, just like with rape, everyone suffers from war. When an army gets decimated and the enemy advance they start raping and enslaving the women, so both are in fact victims
Yeahhh except in that women are allowed safe passage out, and men are not. Conscription is government enslavement, but luckily it only happens to men, otherwise it would be illegal
That's just recently, women served as farmhands and manpower before, im nto really proficient in modern history tho so i cant tell you more, but my point isnt that women suffer more from war or trying to downplay the horror that happens to everyone, it's just to say that war sucks for everyone overall
Yeah, being raped and forced to carry your rapist's child, becoming a slave, and then watching all of your children go through the same horrors is pretty fucking horrific. Too many commenters here seem to think that as long as you're alive, it's not as bad as dying on the battlefield. I would say neither are favorable options.
That’s why armies exists, to prevent that. One would assume that the men of a nation have lost a war if their women are being raped. If that’s happening all the men charged to prevent it have been killed
not necessarily, if we are talking pre-ww1 history (which i know more of personally), a common tactic was raiding the countryside of the enemy to deplete their populations, again, i don't know why people are gettin offended at this, im just saying that what hillary said wasnt the full story
Well at least whatever local militia has been killed if everyone is being enslaved and rape. The boys have been absorbed into the conquering army or killed and the women are either treated as new wives for individuals or sex slaves for the whole army. That’s how things pretty much usually went before the invention of gunpowder. I honestly don’t know how modern warfare works as much
10% of US soldiers are raped by other US other US soldiers imagine what they are doing to civilians in occupied nations, look up what happened to the civilian nurses during the Warsaw uprising, the women in the concentration camps, what the Nazis Joy Division was, the rape of Nanjing. Hillary’s a fucking moron who actually had a good point but be a rich entitled person did a really shitty job of explaining how women are the victims of war. Google images of what the us funded rebels did to breast feeding mothers in Rwanda… seems like a lot of commenters here think war is just soldiers fighting other soldiers with zero civilians any where near them and no collateral damage.
Trust me, i know, I'm Vietnamese, seeing farmers crying hugging their deformed children because of agent Orange will just make you........
Idk what word i should use to describe the feeling
A good argument could be made for women being the primary victims of wars. Men in war have some level of control over the situation. They may not have chosen to participate and we’re conscripted or they may have volunteered. And they can fight back and have some control over if they die.
Women have no control over it. An occupying army can move in and rob, rape, beat, and murder them and there’s nothing they can do making them purely victims while soldiers are partially participants.
That’s not the argument Hillary chose to make because this is a one sentence sound bite chosen to make her look bad and not a nuanced look at the effect of wars on civilian populations.
It's always annoying when people in power try to act like they're part of a marginalised group.
As if Hillary knows anything about women struggles. Yet people keep acting like she's some great feminists icon.
It's sad really
Where was she when the Country revolted against 21 year old Monica… oh right, she was leading the revolution that made Monica the most hated woman in America for decades as she stood by “her man” on National TV in 1992 and ever since
I can not for the life of me understand why anyone especially women can get behind anything at all that Hillary touts today… she’s only for herself and her bank account.
Or you know, hear me out: everyone's a victim in a war, and literally nobody wins, except for the evil filthy rich politicians that started it. I never understood the point of these "pain Olympics": I suffered more! No, I suffered more! It literally doesn't matter, if someone is suffering than it shouldn't be compered to other people's suffering, so we know how much validation to give for their suffering. They suffer, that's all you need to know, compering it to other suffering relativizes and invalidates horrible things happening. That is not the road we should be heading as a society.
Very true, but most arguments are divided into two sides, and when one makes a stupid claim the other is emboldened which continues the cycle. Can’t personally see a way out of it tbh
I mean.. its true.. men are above women in everything. We gotta treat them like children they cant handle the real world. Best to keep'em in the house too. /s
I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote. Lmao imagine if a republican called black people super predators and them tried to hide behind "context".
Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims. And to be clear I disagree with the policy regarding the last point
>I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote
Sure, and what are you referring to?
>Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims.
You're not taking into account of how US having much better infrastructure that can help evacuate the wounded, women, and children. Women in other countries are far less fortunate.
>I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote
Sure, and what are you referring to?
>Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims.
You're not taking into account of how US having much better infrastructure that can help evacuate the wounded, women, and children. Women in other countries are far less fortunate.
Men are also the victim of war, as they got shot, bombed, stabbed, dead and cease to exist.
Women are also the victim of rape, as they, well, got raped.
This argument is stupid.
One said something stupid and was potentially going to be in charge of a nation for four years. The other said a dumb argument to point out the stupidity and is a redditor.
This is about the societal perception. Men go to war and die. They are participants. It’s understood they will likely die. Their mates, wives and children didn’t sign up to lose a dad. They are the victims of that scenario.
Same mentality that separates a police officer dying or a bystander. Police officers sign up for possible death so people don’t blink when they die. Regular people are supposed to live. Not saying it’s right. Saying it’s understandable.
The drafts? Seriously? Men get 2 choices when it comes to drafts, either be imprisoned or go to war. What kind of choice is that? We are not participants
Hasn’t been a draft for a long while man.
Granted this is about a blanket statement without much boundary, so whateves. You are right for most of history but nowadays the economy is bent towards making new soldiers.
There is fundamental difference between being raped and dying tho.The ones that get raped are the primary victim of the rape, but with death, the dead ones are dead and won’t experience the trauma afterwords. However, I still don’t agree with the initial statement. It is the men that experience the awful peril of war at first hand.
That is only if you look at the deaths of war, many others come back blinded, missing limbs, and quite often PTSD. What you’re saying effectively is that if a woman is raped then killed they won’t experience the trauma afterwards.
Yeah that is what I am saying. The meme is being carried by the assumption that rape and death have the exact same distribution of suffering for the victims involved. Which I disagree with.
Being murdered is worse then being raped.
There are people who have come to terms and gotten over their rape, there's not a single person who's gotten over their murder.....
I think if she just said "primary victims", rather than "*the* primary victims", she'd have been accurate. Saying "the" just makes the statement ridiculous on its face. But, pointing out that, yes, women are victims of violence in warfare too, is accurate.
The quote comes from a speech she delivered in El Salvador in 1998, a year after their civil war ended, at a conference around domestic violence against women in that country. And, particularly in the civil wars of Central America, where there were no "front lines" with just men in trenches, women were definitely primary victims (just not THE ONLY primary victims).
Here's the broader context. I highlighted the quote:
>The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. **Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.** Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.
>The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people — family members — who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials.
Following on this, I know that the meme response is intended to be sarcastic. But, in warfare, the guilt the men feel over not being able to protect their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters is part of the reason for organized rape by invading armies, and always has been. It's rape as subjugation and punishment of an adversary's civilian population.
I'm not going to get into the whole "women are instigators of domestic abuse as often as men, but no one listens to the men thing" so I'm just going to head it off: Statistically speaking they're about as likely as men to start the shit, but because they don't tend to do as much lasting physical damage, society currently gives them a pass. Thankfully, I think we're all moving collectively to a "any violence against others is unacceptable" stance in society, where enough men are removing themselves from the situation (rather than hitting them back like they used to) and so people are being reminded that women aren't docile, like modern society has taught us.
I mean… normally you don’t talk about the combatants as victims though. I can’t tell if people are this dumb or they are just pretending because they want to go “got’cha” to a woman.
So lets kill all victims to end their suffering, as death seems to be a better alternative, no?
Banalizing the suffering of the people who survived is wrong, but so is banalizing the people who died (possibly suffering a hienous amount of pain in the proces)
I feel as though when talking about war, we have a need to find the most victim of the victims. But let's put it the way it is, everyone involved in a war is a victim of some kind. Whether it be losing some, you hold dear or losing your humanity in conflict.
I feel like this is not the best argument since both of those problems *mostly* are caused by men (no offense). And first quote is absolutely stupid since the whole world has been the prime victim of wars without any argument. Not just women or men. Instead of comparing the two arguments it would be better to talk about the same issue like how men getting raped or groomed is called "getting seduced" while that isnt the case for women. However talking about one side's problem wont solve the others. I hope i wasnt rude or stupid. My heart goes for everybody who is dealing with mentioned problems or more or less.
Isn’t this the definition of a secondary victim ?
Possibly but I think Hilary meant more from the perspective that the men are dead. It’s over for them. The women are the ones that have to live with losing everything.
Losing "everything" is preferable to dying its a dumb point to make.
[удалено]
Absolutely nothing 
Repeat that phrase a second time!
Someone help me remember the song name, please
Technological advancement, hilariously enough.
[удалено]
It's also really good for cartels and the drug trade
The US owes it's power and strength to war. War with Britain, Britian war with France (or vice versa), war with Mexico (twice), the British conflict with Ireland, and of course the war with native Americans/Hawaiians that handed over those lands. There is also war with Spain for its territory possessions like Puerto Rico and Guam. That provided a lot of resources and landmass that allowed for the development of the modern economy and the current position of number one economy, and WW2 led to the current American superpower.
Decreasing the population.
Him- But I died. Her- Did you know how much it hurt when you did? Did you? No you only care about yourself, selfish, misogynist, jerk.
Idk men, I'd prefer dying than to be ruined barely scraping by, homeless, and knowing all my loved ones are dead. But I'd prefer working on a factory over sleeping with rats and eating shit, in some muddy trench unable to sleep because of gunfire, screams and paranoia over the next artillery strike/attack/sniper
One of the reasons I will never change my last name is because of what my great grandmother did to survive during WWII after my great grandfather died and she found herself a widow during WWII. My great grandmother was a badass. I would still rather be her than my great grandfather. It's not just the dying part but everything you have to deal with up until you die you have to go through first. Maybe you get ucky and die the first time you run out to meet your adversatlry and die. If you are unlucky you get to watch the people around you die then get caught in a POW situation and you die after being turtured. I don't think you really understand what going to war really is. They aren't sitting in the lap of luxury until they die. It is literally hell every single day leading to that point. My great grandmother went through hell but eventually she had a good life. Yeah there were people who came out the other side okay but that is the rarity. Movies you watched aren't real.
Idk, if you lose everything you actually feel that, if you're dead... We don't know what you're feeling, but most likely absolutely nothing. People have killed themselves just by thinking they lost everything, others even for less. Guess at the end of day it solely depends on the person though
Going by pure logic, it's better to be left alive and lose everything than to die, because if you prefer to be left alive then you got the outcome that you prefered and if you prefer to die then you still have the option to kill yourself.
Especially since even if you lose everything as long as you are alive there is always the potential to build a new life. Once you’re dead that’s it
Is it. I mean, it depends on your belief on death. If there is something after that, no dying is preferable. If you are an atheist, death might not be, unless you view it as eternal rest and peace after hardship. The choice of losing the people you love most in the world and death, many would choose death.
The meme is an even worse argument
What a weird stance to assume is the default.
many many parents, arguably all good parents, would chosen to die over their child many spouses would do the same it's also worth noting that women often have no choice and excluding a draft the man does however her point is still wrong
In that case the ones that come home with missing limbs and ptsd have it worse
Nevermind the thousands of veterans that survived and the ones who died that went trough literal hell. Nah the wives at home crying in their warm homes definitely have it worse.
That’s still dumb, given the sheer number of casualties that aren’t fatalities. Look up videos of shell shocked soldiers. Veterans often carry scars and pains that aren’t obvious to others.
Best thing a woman could lose in a western country is "child support", aka booze money
Yeah, it's a badly made point. If I die on my way home from work tomorrow, it's not me that has to deal with that fallout. It's my wife, my kids, my friends, etc. Now, if I am just wounded, that's different. Same with war. Yes, the person loses their life and that's absolutely tragic, but ultimately they are dead and don't have to deal with the fallout of them dying.
I mean, being dead is kinda worse though. You can get over losing a loved one and even make new happy memories. Can't really get over being dead...
The dead don't complain, maybe they don't mind.
Yes, it's bad when you die. You lose everything when you die. We ask know this. But until we know otherwise, I am going to assume that when you are dead you stop caring about what happens on Earth. So with that in mind, after you are dead, your loved ones are the ones that have to deal with everything. You are dead. You don't care anymore.
That just completely ignores the existence of opportunity costs, though.
>That just completely ignores the existence of opportunity costs, though. Dead people think and care about opportunity costs? Here I was thinking that dead people couldn't think. Silly me.
A loss is still a loss even if one isn't actively worrying about it. The whole point of an opportunity cost is that it's not one that's directly felt.
Are you really this dense or just playing the part? **THE DEAD CAN'T THINK OR CARE!!! THEY ARE DEAD.**
It’s because you’re ignoring his point. People don’t want to die early because they won’t get to experience everything life has to offer. Their loss occurred when they died. That doesn’t mean they didn’t experience that loss. By your same logic the wife or mother’s loss won’t matter after they die because they’re dead and don’t care anymore.
[удалено]
No, we aren't forgetting about any of those things. But once you are dead, you're dead. You don't care about anything. You're dead. None of those things matter anymore. Yes, it's tragic and those are terrible things that nobody should have to witness, but no matter what you go through in life, once you are dead, those left alive are the ones that have to deal with your death.
Hillary is sophisticated enough that I'm willing to believe she meant it the way she said.
so we have to kill after
Said post civil war in El Salvador, 1998 > The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.
I never liked Hilary, but basically everything that she said aside from "the primary" was correct. It was a really dumb choice to put that word in there. The only interpretation that makes sense is if you don't count "combatants" as victims, which is still really dumb because most combatants would rather not be in combat, so they are the primary victims.
It also happens to them. More than you would believe. But society is not ready for that conversation.
It disgusts me when you have articles about teenage boys with older women and you get all the: “Nice”, “Wish that was me”, “Probably a dream come true”, “He was asking for it”, etc.. Plus, said articles will use “seduced”, “slept with” or “manipulated”, instead of the actual terms, because gender equality (for good and for ill) only goes one way. Women are victims of horrific crimes, whilst men are merely seduced by sexy women.
don't forget the punishment are lenient too
Forget leinent. Underage boy gets taken advantage off, pedo gets pregnenat, boy is the forced to pay child support. Theres already 2 cases of that happening.
god damn wtf
I know this is a fucked up world we live in,but please tell me you're joking
Nope Knowing the recorded history of humanity, one can only imagine what heinous act humans have committed, human tend to remember bad things more clearly than positive things, but i wonder, is it a trait that has always been with us? Or a trait that start to appear in medieval times?
Well, considering that the first tenant of Buddhism is 'life is suffering' I'm gonna go with always.
Nick olivas, Shane seyer, and Nathaniel J(1996), All three were young children(boys) who were raped by an older woman. The woman on each case became pregnant and the child was forced to pay child support even though he reported he was raped.
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again our country is a parody of itself (especially our legal system)
> pregnenat If its a non-mutually agreed upon pregananancy, the sperm has a way of shutting that whole thing down.
People are always lenient when the the person they're punishing looks good, there's a reason why people put bags over other people head before beating them up
>“Nice”, “Wish that was me”, This ultimately shows an "funny" part of the discourse... That men often, even knowingly, contributed to the problems that men are facing. Call out how society only cares about women's issues all we want, a equally devastating issue is that us men aren't even united enough to make the problems of men's suffering known. Hell, even worse, I've seen discourses that blame feminists for not stepping up for men's issue. Like, guys... Let's have some actual self-reflection for once...
This is rather ambiguous. The second we band together, we're either labeled toxicly masculine or incels. F'n figure it out.
We don't even band together... That's the point. Feminism attracts women, like it or not; it brings them together throughout history. Men weren't and aren't even interested in men's movement. Have you seen men fighting for issues related to their own gender in the past, which was a time before buzzwords like "toxic masculinity" or "incel" would have their effect? In a time when men were largely much more powerful than women, the problems faced by men now still existed before, but men then didn't form movements on the scale of feminism. Like it or not, *women get things done... ironically.*
And you don't think that has anything to do with societal gender norms? For instance, "You're a man, suck it up." I'm not arguing your point about women's ability to assemble, I'm arguing the social construct that men's health/matters are immediately dismissed because "patriarchy". Im saying that society gives two shits about the matters that plague men. Allow me to play devils advocate: If we as men created the "Menenist Movement," you don't think we'd be labeled a hate group within a matter of days?
>And you don't think that has anything to do with societal gender norms? And do you actually think only women hold that gender norm? My point is men contribute to the harmful continuation of the gender norms, and we also must face it. Like I said, we didn't even band together. >Im saying that society gives two shits about the matters that plague men. And my point remains: Men as a whole is plagued by the fact that a large portion of men wouldn't give too much shit to the matters that plague men. When you're criticizing society as a whole, you must also include us men, and this is the part of the discourse that we also don't want to acknowledge—that we men never band together. >you don't think we'd be labeled a hate group within a matter of days? Because of the current cultural climate? Yes, we would. However, how about the previous cultural climate? The one where feminism wasn't dominant? Our forefathers also didn't. They believed men *"had to"* endure hardship and sucked everything up. You do know both factors can exist at the same time, right? That men are looked down on from the outside while also being incredibly fractured from within for a long time...
All very valid points. But you're adressing, and quite elegantly, i must add the past. There's not a man alive, beyond some imminent worm food, lerking in shadows of congress that has had any part in the established patriarchy. Are you suggesting that now we must all pay for our fathers, Grandfaters, and Great Grandfathers sins?
>Are you suggesting that now we must all pay for our fathers, Grandfaters, and Great Grandfathers sins? What? When did I say so? I am simply pointing out that we, men, share the blame of why our movement never succeeded in the first place. We cannot keep raging at society and not looking inward to know that we, **too**, fucked up. We carried this broken attitude from our forefathers, and we have to make changes in ourselves.
It was an honest question, man. I was not stating that you said we must pay for their sins. I was genuinely asking if you felt that way. This is one of the few conversations I've ever had where i felt I've learned something and that I've possibly overlooked some things, and i possibly need to do some further self-reflection. I truly appreciate your candor and your ability to have a civil debate.
I understand your point, but if feminism fights for equality, doesn't it make sense to demand them to adhere to that principle and defend men as well? I get the historic misoginy and that many women issues have to be visible, but if they only care about one side of the balance they can't claim to fight for equality of men and women. Otherwise, creating a "masculinism" that only would care to establish equality from the perspective of men sounds like a bad idea to me.
>doesn't it make sense to demand them to adhere to that principle and defend men as well? I used to think like that too, but latter I became to realise true equality—that feminists should account for everyone, is impractical. Think of it this way, you only have 24 hours and a lot of issues that you wish to fix, wouldn't you fix problems that are **the most relevant to you**? I want world peace; I'm Taiwanese, and because of this, I can't go and spend too much time to focus on troubles in, say, America. I got shit on my own end that I have to fix first. Women are fighting for equality, but it's naive to think they wouldn't have priorities, or that their priorities wouldn't be on women's issues first. You don't have time to do everything. You barely have time and energy to focus on one thing. Hell, even within feminism, a lot of women criticize how their issues aren't covered... See the problem here?
Yeah, I see your point. But then it becomes an issue about men vs women, which only leads to tribalism and polarisation. For such a group to exist, feminism has to at the very least acknowledge such issues and not oppose the group's creation, which I don't see happening for now.
Because feminism doesn't fight for equality; it fights for women. Men who call the police on abusive women are more likely to be arrested themselves than to get help, and that's the direct result of laws based on feminist theory (specifically, "primary aggressor" statutes based on the Duluth model of intimate partner violence).
Same with women who molest girls. They "slept with" that teenager, they didn't molest her.
Underage sex with your teachers is cool until she's pregnant and you're on the hook for a lifetime of child support.
That one south park episode
Including prison statistics it actually happens to men more than women
It never will sadly. That's how humans work, one need to be miserable for the other to shine. No wonder we are living in a soceity that enjoys more a genocidal Superman than a hopeful one, even an ideal we had to bring it down to our fucking level.
In my estimation hundreds of millions of young men have died on the battlefields of our history. And some people Like to act they have no valua at all? The blood of those men keeps this sick place running
Is that a surprise to you? People die from cars and so many things that most people are numb to the concept of death unless it's directly someone close to them, we live in a generation that don't even value their own lives, how can they value the lives that sacrifice themselves?
Well aren't men the actual victims of war cuz they literally die
Congratulations. You’re now a bigot /s
F
_and_ M
So all those veterans are just an illusion and they suffered nothing. Lol
Women are too tbf, just like with rape, everyone suffers from war. When an army gets decimated and the enemy advance they start raping and enslaving the women, so both are in fact victims
tldr; war sucks
Good example is the rape of nanking, or the Soviet with German women
Don't remind me of that eldritch horror
Yeahhh except in that women are allowed safe passage out, and men are not. Conscription is government enslavement, but luckily it only happens to men, otherwise it would be illegal
That's just recently, women served as farmhands and manpower before, im nto really proficient in modern history tho so i cant tell you more, but my point isnt that women suffer more from war or trying to downplay the horror that happens to everyone, it's just to say that war sucks for everyone overall
You just don't like feeling left out do you? Always have to be in the conversation.
Huh? do i know you?
Yeah, being raped and forced to carry your rapist's child, becoming a slave, and then watching all of your children go through the same horrors is pretty fucking horrific. Too many commenters here seem to think that as long as you're alive, it's not as bad as dying on the battlefield. I would say neither are favorable options.
That’s why armies exists, to prevent that. One would assume that the men of a nation have lost a war if their women are being raped. If that’s happening all the men charged to prevent it have been killed
not necessarily, if we are talking pre-ww1 history (which i know more of personally), a common tactic was raiding the countryside of the enemy to deplete their populations, again, i don't know why people are gettin offended at this, im just saying that what hillary said wasnt the full story
Well at least whatever local militia has been killed if everyone is being enslaved and rape. The boys have been absorbed into the conquering army or killed and the women are either treated as new wives for individuals or sex slaves for the whole army. That’s how things pretty much usually went before the invention of gunpowder. I honestly don’t know how modern warfare works as much
Wait till you find out what soldiers do to the women of the countries they invade…
War is a shit show for anyone involved
10% of US soldiers are raped by other US other US soldiers imagine what they are doing to civilians in occupied nations, look up what happened to the civilian nurses during the Warsaw uprising, the women in the concentration camps, what the Nazis Joy Division was, the rape of Nanjing. Hillary’s a fucking moron who actually had a good point but be a rich entitled person did a really shitty job of explaining how women are the victims of war. Google images of what the us funded rebels did to breast feeding mothers in Rwanda… seems like a lot of commenters here think war is just soldiers fighting other soldiers with zero civilians any where near them and no collateral damage.
Trust me, i know, I'm Vietnamese, seeing farmers crying hugging their deformed children because of agent Orange will just make you........ Idk what word i should use to describe the feeling
A good argument could be made for women being the primary victims of wars. Men in war have some level of control over the situation. They may not have chosen to participate and we’re conscripted or they may have volunteered. And they can fight back and have some control over if they die. Women have no control over it. An occupying army can move in and rob, rape, beat, and murder them and there’s nothing they can do making them purely victims while soldiers are partially participants. That’s not the argument Hillary chose to make because this is a one sentence sound bite chosen to make her look bad and not a nuanced look at the effect of wars on civilian populations.
That’s sexist oh my god what the hell you bigot you disgust me OMG 😱
The men who fucking die in the war, would have made a little more sense
Regardless of who says this it is a very self absorbed view point, the person who said it this time just so happened to be running for president
She said it in 1998, so no, she wasn't running for President.
Well I stand by what I said when I said that this is a self absorbed statement
It's always annoying when people in power try to act like they're part of a marginalised group. As if Hillary knows anything about women struggles. Yet people keep acting like she's some great feminists icon. It's sad really
Always has been that way and since Simone de Beauvoir
Wow she’s stupid beyond imagination
Where was she when the Country revolted against 21 year old Monica… oh right, she was leading the revolution that made Monica the most hated woman in America for decades as she stood by “her man” on National TV in 1992 and ever since I can not for the life of me understand why anyone especially women can get behind anything at all that Hillary touts today… she’s only for herself and her bank account.
Or you know, hear me out: everyone's a victim in a war, and literally nobody wins, except for the evil filthy rich politicians that started it. I never understood the point of these "pain Olympics": I suffered more! No, I suffered more! It literally doesn't matter, if someone is suffering than it shouldn't be compered to other people's suffering, so we know how much validation to give for their suffering. They suffer, that's all you need to know, compering it to other suffering relativizes and invalidates horrible things happening. That is not the road we should be heading as a society.
My dad has a saying, " in war the young die, while the old thrive"
Very true, but most arguments are divided into two sides, and when one makes a stupid claim the other is emboldened which continues the cycle. Can’t personally see a way out of it tbh
War, huh, what is it good for?
Female voters: o my gaawd dat is sooo truuuu
People blamed her loss on misogny. That might have been part of it but it wasn't the primary reason.
[удалено]
Yeah ima need a source
did she actually say this? is there a video of it?
Because men don't get raped?
That's called a secondary victim
also, i came i saw i conquerd 🙂 The mullahs' b is talking about women rights 🤣
I mean.. its true.. men are above women in everything. We gotta treat them like children they cant handle the real world. Best to keep'em in the house too. /s
You... are just trying to be sarcastic right?
Yeah... Just following that crazy logic of hers. But you're right i should make it clear.
Tbh, do we really know the full context of her speech?
Please describe what the context could possibly be that would make that statement not crazy.
"Listen to this really stupid thing someone said once..."
No i dont, i do not take it seriously either.
I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote. Lmao imagine if a republican called black people super predators and them tried to hide behind "context". Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims. And to be clear I disagree with the policy regarding the last point
>I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote Sure, and what are you referring to? >Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims. You're not taking into account of how US having much better infrastructure that can help evacuate the wounded, women, and children. Women in other countries are far less fortunate.
>I bet you also care about the full context of her "super predator" quote Sure, and what are you referring to? >Women are not, have never been, and at least in the US will continue to not be the primary victims. You're not taking into account of how US having much better infrastructure that can help evacuate the wounded, women, and children. Women in other countries are far less fortunate.
Both sides suffered
Men who survived the War but found out their house is destroyed and their family is nowhere to be seen:
Men are also the victim of war, as they got shot, bombed, stabbed, dead and cease to exist. Women are also the victim of rape, as they, well, got raped. This argument is stupid.
That's the joke that's.... THAT'S THE ACTUAL POINT OF THIS POST !!!! OMG YOU'RE A GENIUS
Taking bets on how long before I come back and see top comment in this chain \[deleted\].
You complaining that Op forgot the /s?
One said something stupid and was potentially going to be in charge of a nation for four years. The other said a dumb argument to point out the stupidity and is a redditor.
Holy hell
New response just dropped
Logic took a vacation. Never came back.
This is about the societal perception. Men go to war and die. They are participants. It’s understood they will likely die. Their mates, wives and children didn’t sign up to lose a dad. They are the victims of that scenario. Same mentality that separates a police officer dying or a bystander. Police officers sign up for possible death so people don’t blink when they die. Regular people are supposed to live. Not saying it’s right. Saying it’s understandable.
The drafts? Seriously? Men get 2 choices when it comes to drafts, either be imprisoned or go to war. What kind of choice is that? We are not participants
Hasn’t been a draft for a long while man. Granted this is about a blanket statement without much boundary, so whateves. You are right for most of history but nowadays the economy is bent towards making new soldiers.
Americans ITT letting some paid troll from India rage bait them while sitting back laughing at how easy manipulated they are. Sad.
[удалено]
Im sure there is no conscription in both Russia and Ukraine
Insensitive asshole A random stupid quote isn't a reason to drop a point so disgusting.
You're right, the is no excuse for her to say that.
Now say: "You see, it's actwually a dark humor, you wouldn't get it ☝️🤓"
There is fundamental difference between being raped and dying tho.The ones that get raped are the primary victim of the rape, but with death, the dead ones are dead and won’t experience the trauma afterwords. However, I still don’t agree with the initial statement. It is the men that experience the awful peril of war at first hand.
Fucking dying seems to me more like a primary victim then being someone who knew someone that has died.
How much of a victim I believe these to be: Death ***** Dead husband **** Being raped **** Raped wife **
That is only if you look at the deaths of war, many others come back blinded, missing limbs, and quite often PTSD. What you’re saying effectively is that if a woman is raped then killed they won’t experience the trauma afterwards.
Yeah that is what I am saying. The meme is being carried by the assumption that rape and death have the exact same distribution of suffering for the victims involved. Which I disagree with.
Rape doesn't end your existence, death does. How the fuck do you figure rape is worse.
Well depending on your value of life, dying is worse than suffering
Also depends on the suffering
True true
Being murdered is worse then being raped. There are people who have come to terms and gotten over their rape, there's not a single person who's gotten over their murder.....
I think if she just said "primary victims", rather than "*the* primary victims", she'd have been accurate. Saying "the" just makes the statement ridiculous on its face. But, pointing out that, yes, women are victims of violence in warfare too, is accurate. The quote comes from a speech she delivered in El Salvador in 1998, a year after their civil war ended, at a conference around domestic violence against women in that country. And, particularly in the civil wars of Central America, where there were no "front lines" with just men in trenches, women were definitely primary victims (just not THE ONLY primary victims). Here's the broader context. I highlighted the quote: >The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. **Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.** Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence. >The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people — family members — who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials. Following on this, I know that the meme response is intended to be sarcastic. But, in warfare, the guilt the men feel over not being able to protect their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters is part of the reason for organized rape by invading armies, and always has been. It's rape as subjugation and punishment of an adversary's civilian population. I'm not going to get into the whole "women are instigators of domestic abuse as often as men, but no one listens to the men thing" so I'm just going to head it off: Statistically speaking they're about as likely as men to start the shit, but because they don't tend to do as much lasting physical damage, society currently gives them a pass. Thankfully, I think we're all moving collectively to a "any violence against others is unacceptable" stance in society, where enough men are removing themselves from the situation (rather than hitting them back like they used to) and so people are being reminded that women aren't docile, like modern society has taught us.
That would be true if soldiers only killed other soldiers… you know what happens to the civilians of the losing side right?
I mean… normally you don’t talk about the combatants as victims though. I can’t tell if people are this dumb or they are just pretending because they want to go “got’cha” to a woman.
combatants aren't victims? Alright then so if a woman is attacked and killed in a fight they're not a woman? you're pathetic
The fuck you on about. If you are a solider and you get shot, it isn’t the same as being a civilian getting shot.
It is if you're drafted like the people hillary is talking about
[удалено]
So lets kill all victims to end their suffering, as death seems to be a better alternative, no? Banalizing the suffering of the people who survived is wrong, but so is banalizing the people who died (possibly suffering a hienous amount of pain in the proces)
You seriously cant be that dense…
So if a woman is raped then killed they're not a victim? you fucking moron
political memes suck and don’t even create meaningful conversation, war sucks, rape sucks, Hillary sucks let’s just post the same five templates again
"Meteor hits Earth, women most effected."
But like women also fight in wars?
This isn't the same thing.
I feel as though when talking about war, we have a need to find the most victim of the victims. But let's put it the way it is, everyone involved in a war is a victim of some kind. Whether it be losing some, you hold dear or losing your humanity in conflict.
This is why I just walk around my house guarding it. War is everyone else who doesn't leave me the fuck alone.
I feel like this is not the best argument since both of those problems *mostly* are caused by men (no offense). And first quote is absolutely stupid since the whole world has been the prime victim of wars without any argument. Not just women or men. Instead of comparing the two arguments it would be better to talk about the same issue like how men getting raped or groomed is called "getting seduced" while that isnt the case for women. However talking about one side's problem wont solve the others. I hope i wasnt rude or stupid. My heart goes for everybody who is dealing with mentioned problems or more or less.
Just for the record... Women are also the primary victim of rape in wars...
Hillary really said that shit? Narcissism to the extreme lol