the ethics of child brides -- modern slavery

[IndigoChild5559]

They fight wars because of violence
They keep women out of them because they saw they are weak and treat them like children
They die by police because of violence

These are self made problems, they **** on the bed now lie in it, but they don't they also drag everyone else into it

There should be no draft

Do I really need to discuss what happens to women in war zones?

 

[Heyo]

Where you see groups, I see individuals,

-

Oh, another problem...20 times as many men are
killed by cops here compared to women.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is clear as day that women have life worse under men all the time.

There are males too in pitiable situation for being married.

In my experience, women can oppress other women, too.

Or males. Oppressive people try to oppress all they come across.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Men would never be treated this way.

You mean boys, right?

Bacha bazi - Wikipedia

Boys are abused in similar ways all over the world, just like girls are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean boys, right?

Bacha bazi - Wikipedia

Boys are abused in similar ways all over the world, just like girls are.

Yes, though not as often.
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse
Child Sexual Abuse Statistics – The National Center for Victims of Crime

4.5% of boys are married before the age of 18. But with girls its 1 in 3 girls marry by age 18 and 1 in 9 marry by age 15.
70% of those trafficed are female.
While the literacy rate for men is 87%, the rate for women is 77%.
I could go on and on.

 

[Kooky]

It may be shocking to many here that underage marriage is actually legal in most US states, and still disturbingly prevalent. The majority of underage marriages in the US seem to be underage girls marrying much older men.

The exact number of child marriages that have taken in the US is difficult to determine. However, after conducting a comprehensive review of marriage licenses from across the country, Unchained At Last estimates that about 248,000 children were married in the US between 2000 and 2010.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/child-marriage-in-the-us-what-to-know/

Child marriage is "extremely prevalent" in U.S.: "The cycle perpetuates across generations" - CBS News

 

[firedragon]

Do I really need to discuss what happens to women in war zones?

In an asian country during the British occupation in the 20th century, a group of women who came to protest a young mans arrest were stripped naked and let loose in the street. For these women there is nothing worse than shame. One woman saved herself to tell the story. The rest of them committed suicide.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair though, the draft, the Vietnam war were all male led policies. .

Let's do a thought experiment...
You're kidnapped & assaulted in captivity for a couple years.
It's done by other men. Does the shared gender make it OK?
Are you culpable for your plight because you're one of them?

We should see people as individuals, not as groups opposing
each other. Otherwise, if our new USSC justice, Barrett, is the
deciding vote in knocking down abortion rights, then women
would have no complaint.

Oh, BTW....women got to vote for politicians who sent us
off to war using the draft. Perhaps women shouldn't have
the right to vote when their choices adversely affect men, eh.
Now, before the screaming starts, google "reductio ad absurdum".

 

[Revoltingest]

Men are, sadly, overwhelmingly responsible for violence that befall other men (and women).

And black men are the most crime prone of all men
in Ameristan. Should we single them out for castigation?

I loathe the notion that bigotry is OK towards some
groups, but not others. If something is wrong, decry it.
If persons do something wrong, decry those persons.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, though not as often.
1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse
Child Sexual Abuse Statistics – The National Center for Victims of Crime

4.5% of boys are married before the age of 18. But with girls its 1 in 3 girls marry by age 18 and 1 in 9 marry by age 15.
70% of those trafficed are female.
While the literacy rate for men is 87%, the rate for women is 77%.
I could go on and on.

As I see those figures, what's wrong is what's done to those
individuals, regardless of their gender, or that of their abusers.

 

[epronovost]

Let's do a thought experiment...
You're kidnapped & assaulted in captivity for a couple years.
It's done by other men. Does the shared gender make it OK?
Are you culpable for your plight because you're one of them?

The answer is no and no, but that's a red herring when it comes to gender based violence which is what is being discussed. I don't see why you would bring that up in a conversation about child marriage or gender based violence. Yes, bad things happen to some men. That's an undeniable truth, but I don't see why you feel the need to specify it when the conversation is mass, institutional violence directed largely against girls. If I talk about the Holocost, will you feel the need to say that your uncle Henry died in a drive-by-shooting?

We should see people as individuals, not as groups opposing
each other. Otherwise, if our new USSC justice, Barrett, is the
deciding vote in knocking down abortion rights, then women
would have no complaint.

Technically no. Barrett was named by a man to defend a patriarchal societal values. Also, most member of the SCOTUS are men. In fact, Barret would likely be the only women to vote to withdraw a right from a women based on her analysis of a law pushed for and voted on largely by men. The denial of abortion rights is a form of gender based violence since it's an act of violence largely directed by men against a group exclusively composed of women. Such is not the case for wars or drafts.

Oh, BTW....women got to vote for politicians who sent us
off to war using the draft.

Women in general opposed the Vietnam war and the draft far more than men (and you don't vote for the draft or for war specifically, you vote for a politician platform and often you will vote for people even if you disagree with some of their policies). In fact, if men didn't have the right to vote or simply were less numerous, the US would have neither the draft nor been to Vietnam (or in any foreign war in the 20th century). Again, this isn't a case of gender based violence. It's not a group harming you specifically based on your gender or gender identity.

Perhaps women shouldn't have
the right to vote when their choices adversely affect men, eh.
Now, before the screaming starts, google "reductio ad absurdum".

That's a poor reductio ad absurdum if only because not only have women served in Vietnam on the US side as nurses, but also undermined by the fact that, generally, women are adversely affected by the death of their children and husbands in war and that's precisely why wars are much more unpopular amongst the female than the male demographic.

 

[epronovost]

And black men are the most crime prone of all men
in Ameristan. Should we single them out for castigation?

They already are my good sir. Poor black men are the most policed demographic in the US despite the fact they actually are not the most crime proone men in the US. That crown actually goes to sociopathic men though these ones are impossible to spot in a crowd. Is it fair that black men are policed in such a way? The answer is no if only because their level of surveillance exceeds their statistically higher rates of criminality by a wide margin and can, to a certain extand, distort the data on criminality itself. You also have to add to that the historical violence perpetrated by the State against black people and communities.

Also, I don't see where you get this impression that every single men is being castigated here for child marriage or other forms of violence affecting women or even violence in general. Yes, men, as a social group, are largely responsible for human violence and often the first victim of it and yes, resources devoted to counter violence or limit it will be directed at men as a social group too. Does that mean that all men a violent and dangerous? No, that would be a fallacy of composition.

 

[epronovost]

As I see those figures, what's wrong is what's done to those
individuals, regardless of their gender, or that of their abusers.

That's nice and well, but compassion only goes so far (ad frankly doesn't make for much of a conversation). If you want to understand, eradicate or at least mitigate this social phenomenon, you will have to adress the fact that this specific form of violence is a form of gender based violence, that the victims are overwhelmingly of one gender and that the abusers are overwhelmingly of another. You will have to adress root causes in culture, religion and politics. You will have to stop seeing the problem as something that happen to an individual and start to look at it as a social phenomenon.

 

[Revoltingest]

The answer is no and no, but that's a red herring...

Only in the mind of those who see people as groups
instead of individual. We have posts criticizing men
for being men, & entirely ignoring wrongs done to us.
This is bigotry.

when it comes to gender based violence which is what is being discussed. I don't see why you would bring that up in a conversation about child marriage or gender based violence.

Perhaps you didn't read the posts I responded to.
She dismissed any problems men have.

Technically no. Barrett was named by a man to defend a patriarchal societal values.

What some call the "patriarchy" includes a great many women.
So painting men as perps, & women as victims is a heinous
form of bigotry that ignores the individual. Moreover, it enables
government's wrongful acts, eg, wars, draft.

.....women served in Vietnam....

They did so voluntarily.
But only men were drafted against their will.
This matters to those of us who value civil liberty,
& see people as individuals....not just a tribe.

....women are adversely affected by the death of their children and husbands....

Are you equating the suffering of those who died
in war with their survivors? Oh, dear.
I say that getting killed is far far far worse than
being a surviving family member. The dead
stay that way. Survivors can move on.

 

[Revoltingest]

They already are my good sir. Poor black men are the most policed demographic in the US despite the fact they actually are not the most crime proone men in the US. That crown actually goes to sociopathic men though these ones are impossible to spot in a crowd. Is it fair that black men are policed in such a way? The answer is no if only because their level of surveillance exceeds their statistically higher rates of criminality by a wide margin and can, to a certain extand, distort the data on criminality itself. You also have to add to that the historical violence perpetrated by the State against black people and communities.

Also, I don't see where you get this impression that every single men is being castigated here for child marriage or other forms of violence affecting women or even violence in general. Yes, men, as a social group, are largely responsible for human violence and often the first victim of it and yes, resources devoted to counter violence or limit it will be directed at men as a social group too. Does that mean that all men a violent and dangerous? No, that would be a fallacy of composition.

I don't think you're considering the context of my posts.
I responded to another's posts. You should read them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's nice and well, but compassion only goes so far (ad frankly doesn't make for much of a conversation). If you want to understand, eradicate or at least mitigate this social phenomenon, you will have to adress the fact that this specific form of violence is a form of gender based violence, that the victims are overwhelmingly of one gender and that the abusers are overwhelmingly of another. You will have to adress root causes in culture, religion and politics. You will have to stop seeing the problem as something that happen to an individual and start to look at it as a social phenomenon.

See post #35.

 

[epronovost]

Only in the mind of those who see people as groups
instead of individual. We have posts criticizing men
for being men, & entirely ignoring wrongs done to us.
This is bigotry.

Which ones, I didn't see anything like that?

What some call the "patriarchy" includes a great many women.
So painting men as perps, & women as victims is a heinous
form of bigotry that ignores the individual. Moreover, it enables
government's wrongful acts, eg, wars, draft.

Of course the partiarchy includes some women, it inculdes all women, men and children. It's a mode of social organisation in which men, specifically, mature men, have power over women, children and younger men and in which masculine values, experience and opinions are respected above others and hold more authority. Yes, many women support patriarchal systems if only because being a well positionned number 2 is often preferable to the risk of changing the system and ending up at the same place or worst.

They did so voluntarily.
But only men were drafted against their will.
This matters to those of us who value civil liberty,
& see people as individuals....not just a tribe.

Well technically only American women were protected from the draft by being considered too weak and incapable of military service (just like handicaped or simply abnormaly short and or fat men and boys for that matter, the draft also didn't touch a variety of subclass of military capable men like the very rich, some university students, farmers, etc.). Also, while the draft is indeed terrible in my opinion too. In a democracy, it was voted on and approved as a legitimate and acceptable method and temporary restriction on personal liberty and those who launched the war and called the draft were elected and had wide support from the bassin of people upon which the draft was going to be called upon. That's not oppressive; it's bad, but not oppressive.

In the case of child marriage and forced marriage, there is no such wide support from children and women for such practice (hence the term forced). Furthermore, in most cases and in almost all countries where such practice exists, women and children have no political tools to either give their opinions and make political choices (AKA they live in a dictatorship) and very little social authority (AKA they don't control nor have a lot of social strengths and status).

Are you equating the suffering of those who died
in war with their survivors? Oh, dear
I say that getting killed is far far far worse than
being a surviving family member. The dead
stay that way. Survivors can move on.

I don't know, would you rather be dead or lose that which you love the most? Suffering is a rather personal experience. Both a terribly painful thing. Which one is worst? I don't know. I would personaly rather die a horrible death than see my child or lover die. The advantage of being dead is that your suffering is over. Grief can last a lifetime. I would say it stands to logic that losing your child is worst than personaly dying else how would you explain the fact that women, especially mothers of young men, fear and oppose war more than men, especially young men likely to fight in those wars?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which ones, I didn't see anything like that?

The responsible poster reads the whole thread,
especially when jumping to a discussion between
other posters.

 

[epronovost]

The responsible poster reads the whole thread,
especially when jumping to a discussion between
other posters.

A responsible poster can quote the people he is responding to and present his own arguments and perception himself. Who critized men for being men?

 

[Revoltingest]

A responsible poster can quote the people he is responding to and present his own arguments and perception himself. Who critized men for being men?

This is unproductive.
I'll pass.