Victoribus Spolia wrote:I answered the question adequately, you asked a question that involved voting and conscription, etc. I support neither of these for anyone and so its not a gender specific issue in my mind.
If you thought I believed otherwise, then you misunderstand my views.
My point was about being excluded from society, or at least, from the places of power in society.
The argument was that women were not allowed to vote because they were also excluded from military service.
In both cases, there is a unilateral decision to keep a group from accessing power. The people excluded from power (in this case, women) are logically going to want to change that. Out of sheer self interest, if nothing else, feminism will come about as a reaction to these policies.
Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.
You think I should allow anyone to do my electrical work so long as they want to, regardless of qualification?
The weird assumption you are adding to this question is that being a woman makes you dangerously unqualified for military activity and voting, the same way an untrained person would be if they tried to do electrical work.
Are you saying someone has the right to endanger themselves by breaching someone else's desire to voluntarily disassociate? If not, I don't see what your objection is to my argument and examples.
If I don't want someone who is not qualified to do electrical work to risk electrocution by doing work on my house, even if they "want" to, I don't see how anyone's rights are being violated nor do I see how anyone was being disrespected.
If you have a counter argument to my claims, please present it.
Again, forbidding women the vote and forbidding the women from joining the military are the two rights that are under discussion. And in @SolarCross‘s argument, one justifies the other.
I am not sure what your argument about “endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life” has to do with that.
Your misunderstood my claims. I think any adult should be free to voluntarily associate with others, but I also believe people should voluntarily choose not to associate as well. Hence, if I have a private army, a woman is free to apply to fight in battle with my army and I am equally free to reject her application on the basis of her sex because I don't want to see women get killed in hand-to-hand combat with men who are biologically more suited to warfare. Both instances are examples of voluntary association.
If you think I EVER argued that a state was justified in limiting voluntary association, even of women, you are grossly mistaken and my earlier posts on this thread claim nothing different even where explaining the psychology of traditionalist societies regarding their norms as they pertain to female participation in certain vocations and activities.
If you have an argument to the contrary of my claims. please present it.
I see the confusion.
@SolarCross and I were discussing historical conditions in western societies and the modern context of non-western societies.
You are discussing a hypothetical situation based on your ideology.
The two contexts are clearly different.
In the historical context, keeping women from voting, joining the military, owning land, etc. were all ways of limiting power to the people who held power at the time.
In your hypothetical context, the same factors do not apply.
Sure, but who on here was defending the rape of women by soliders? This sounds like a strawman.
The fact that I will teach my daughters how to use firearms proficiently and use self-defense against marauder male rapists neither implies feminism on my part nor a desire to see my daughters become conscripts.
I think you have a strange and deluded idea of traditionalism, a chimera of your own making.
I never claimed that you support battle rape. In fact, I assumed the exact opposite and your training of your daughters is a testament to the fact that you do not support battle rape.
War rape is a historical fact. This means that traditionally, the role of women in war is to be a passive bystander who can do little to prevent war rape.
And it seems we agree that teaching women to be proficient in military arts is a way of preventing rape in general.
And this is an argument for why women have wanted to join the military.
I answered your question, I am assuming your own moral system, thus if morality is subjective; whether I agree with your particular claims or not becomes irrelevant, because I have no justification to apply them outside of myself in obligating others; hence making any debate a fruitless and pointless dispute over competing preferences.
If you wish to claim that people "ought" to behave a certain way regarding women, thats fine, so long as its clear that such a claim is an objective and not subjective moral claim and thus evidence of your own inconsistency regarding ethics and moral philosophy.
How so? Please explain.
How do you think I define “subjective morality”?
I think you define “objective morality” as “any morality that uses objective facts and/or logic to arrive at moral ideas”.
Because of this, I think that you assume I think that subjective morality is a morality that does not use objective facts or logic at all.
These are not the definitions I use when I say morality is subjective.
By that I mean that morality is purely a human construct that only exists because we are sapient and social beings who evolved to have it.
If I were to use your definitions of objective and subjective morality, I would say that the universe has billions of objective moralities right now, and when the last sapient mind dies in the far future, it will have zero.