SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:
i'm not understanding this comment... are you somehow implying that women do not engage in conflict? because if that's your argument here then i can't take you seriously
if you are reasonable and acknowledge that women do engage in conflict... then you really don't have an argument do you?
|
Of course they engage in conflict and many women leaders have waged war campaigns throughout history. You proclaimed that only men were forced into war which is itself not entirely true. My point is that war is largely waged at the behest of men. To claim men were disadvantaged because they were forced into war should not ignore the fact it was man that sent them there in the first place.
This debate is centering on women forcing men from access to something (a music venue or something). In war, women were not generally the ones forcing men into war. It was other men. The equivalent here would be men banning themselves from a venue.
|
" You proclaimed that only men were forced into war which is itself not entirely true. "
that's like saying that men didn't hold the positions of power throughout history because of cleopatra or queen victoria and i'd say that this is closer to the truth compared with what you're doing here
"My point is that war is largely waged at the behest of men."
for the benefit of men, women and children mostly at the expense of men and yet there's this silly narrative that only women endured hardship in society
" In war, women were not generally the ones forcing men into war. It was other men."
and what was the reason? simply because men are violent and need to engage in war? or was it to benefit society when times were harder and resources were harder come by?
when we hunted mammoth and killed them, did we do so for fun or was their primarily another more important reason for doing so?
"This debate is centering on women forcing men from access to something (a music venue or something)."
true, i only made the point i made in response to what you posted originally
