my challenge to this is that while yes we are largely beyond this necessity in modern times, it is still males who have traditionally called the shots with regard to issues such as who is allowed to remain disposable. For example, back to allowing females on the battlefield, it is still males who are the primary ones in the administrative or authoritative roles that allow for things to change.
Right, and they're operating off of the notion that it is their duty (I don't think I have to make the argument that a lot of traditionalists wind up in the army do I? Even if they're not traditionalists this kind of thinking is omnipresent, but I digress) to sacrifice themselves to protect women.
There has been, in fact, a push to include women in the military for quite a number of years. I haven't served in the military, but most of my friends joined right out of high school and based on their estimation of life in the military things like race, gender and sexual orientation disappear in combat and usually before then even. The U.S. military has allowed women in for many years now and several of them have become officers, some of them
high-ranking. Promotions are meritocratic however, and also with not as many women joining as men there will be few female officers and few female soldiers.
With regard to disposability and the burning building / lifeboat example, men don't need to advocate for changes in law or established regulation to decline to save a woman who is in danger. There may be unfair social repercussions but it is still his right to choose.
To choose between dying and having their manhood invalidated by sacrificing a woman to die in their place thus making them cowards in the eyes of society? Yes, they technically had that choice.
By contrast, women need to advocate for policy changes in order to challenge social conventions and put their lives on the line on the battle front alongside men. They can't just walk onto the battlefield without it being permitted and coordinated by a male-dominated administration.
Probably should volunteer in greater numbers to fix that.
I also think about the documentary discussing how women would tend to shy away from the intense scrutiny and responsibility that it takes to be a politician, and how men are kind of painted in a noble light for their willingness to undertake the burden. There wasn't really (maybe I missed it?) any evidence to substantiate the assertion that women don't want/try to take these positions, but either way, just hearing about scandals involving sexual harassment in the senate etc makes it seem like quite an uphill battle on an additional level for any females who do enter the fray.
Other than the fact that seeking high-ranking corporate positions or positions on the national stage of politics is something that men do more statistically speaking? Jeanette Rankin was the first Female Congressional member back in like the 1910s I want to say- and since then women have had plenty of opportunity to run for office and yet they don't. The sexual harassment is a problem, though no doubt about that but it's already a lot of work to go through for a job where- man or woman pretty much everyone has a reason to be upset with you and there is little time for being a mother or a father or even just for yourself.
One point of confusion that I have is that KS identifies feminism in general as putting female interests above that of males. My understanding was that the umbrella of feminism promotes women achieving equality with men in all aspects of society. While I do agree that forms of extreme feminism (and I think this is where the term "feminisms" as
@invisible mentioned is applicable) do not seek to promote equality but superiority, I am interested in her rationale or experience that leads her to identify feminism in general as pushing an idea of female superiority. In The Red Pill at the very end Cassie renounces her identification as a feminist, and I assume that it was done under the same rationale, but I didn't really see anything to substantiate that feminism inherently promotes the inequality that they both seem to rebuke.
You haven't seen the multitude of feminists who came out against the red pill without having seen the film and began claiming it supported rape and that the movement (as one feminist gender studies professor put it) was all about men having the right to sleep with women whenever they want to without them being able to object. Now as someone who has seen the film, you know that's a lie- they're lying to the public and marginalizing men's issues- that's not helping both sexes that's only helping themselves. Additionally, think of how many laws feminists have managed to pass and yet in Canada, if you poke holes in the condom to trick a woman into having a kid you go to jail (thanks to feminists changing the laws) but if you trick a man into having a baby as a woman not only do you not go to jail the poor bastard still has to pay child support. Isn't it odd how they were able to change one law but not another?
I was having some difficulty following what she was saying (around 3:55) when she was talking about how in more "backwards" societies, women had severe restrictions upon their agency and freedom in the name of protecting them. My understanding of her counterpoint was that: "While this may be the case, if I were male soldier on the battlefield I might rather be a sexual object than a disposable object." However I think that kind of side-stepped the fact that being prized as a sexual/reproductive object does not equate to such "possessions" being immune from abuse or disposablility should they step out of line.
Ancient Rome had courts, right? You couldn't murder your wife without standing trial because you were violating the law but if you died whilst fighting for the empire that was nothing to worry about. As a woman you might be marginalized because of your gender but being marginalized is marginally better than being dead.