Men as Slaves in War

[Bonobo]

Who could disagree that it is horrible to use women as sex slaves in war? Of course it is. But rape has been a part of war since the dawn of civilization, so trying to reduce the amount of rape -or eliminate it- by creating a sex industry to service soldiers.... Hmmm... still wrong, of course.

But if there is one thing missing from this whole conversation spurred by the recent comments of Hashimoto, the mayor of Osaka, it is this:

Men were forced by the millions to murder and die. Yes, they were slaves who were ordered to commit the greatest sin -the murder of another human and to give up their own lives and leave their families.

Let me say that again. Men have been forced to become murdering slaves by the MILLIONS. Forced prostitution is surely evil, but are we not missing something by not addressing the evil of taking millions of men as slaves to kill and/or be killed?

Yeah, slaves.

[Major Nikon]

1. People aren't reminded of that enough

Which is why people like Bush can use the lives of soldiers and civilians as political tools. When soldiers are seen as no more than canon fodder and civilians are seen as collateral damage, life gets a whole lot cheaper.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. War is a shit deal for everyone concerned.

What the Japanese did to those women is inexcusable. I think the conversation about men in war is a separate issue, albeit still falling under the umbrella of "war is a shit deal".

[Bonobo]

3. Big umbrella.

It is a separate issue, yes. But given the attention that one gives, let me ask you this:

When was the last time you heard commentary that talked about how men have been enslaved by the millions as killers?

A link would be appreciated. But I think any reasonable statistical analysis will bear out my suspicion that it is NOT talked about that way -certainly not with the ease with which the plight of the women were.

Oh, by the way: When the Americans occupied Japan or Vietnam, what do you think they were doing if not fucking and raping natives by the tens of thousands?

[Warren DeMontague]

4. It should be talked about.

And you're right.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I would also say this; right or wrong, atrocities that are "officially" sanctioned or organized are

often viewed differently through the historical lens.

This may be just because there's a centralized entity, ostensibly, upon which the blame can be laid, or maybe because there's more of a record. Unlike "ordinary" atrocities of war.

None of this makes any of it better, but it seems to be the way these things play out.

[Bonobo]

8. So in other words...

The Patriarchy, right?

Teh Menz did it to themselves... and the womenfolk had no say in the matter of the draft.

Right?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. No, I was talking more like the difference between the Japanese WWII situation and, say, Vietnam.

As in the difference between a large number of horrible acts committed in the course of a bad war, and a large number of horrible acts committed in the course of a bad war at the behest of someone's direct orders or plan.

[digonswine]

5. It seems that it has been talked about-

maybe just not in the words you like. Men have certainly been, and still are, used as pawns in wars that concern only those in power.
Countless things have been said about this injustice. I just do not see how calling attention to another problem has anything to do with this one.
Men being slaves is not news.

[Bonobo]

6. Hang on a second.

You think the WAY it is talked about doesn't matter?

"Pawns" in war is not the same as saying slaves.

Combine that with the whole "hero " myth and you have a pretty nice system of control there.

Now, point me to an article that talks about the mass-enslavement of men and I will be surprised. Maybe you might find something, I don't know. But I sure as hell never saw it if it exists.

The absence of something can be as telling as its presence.

And as for calling attention to one injustice to highlight a closely related injustice? Is that strange or wrong? I don't think so.

[digonswine]

10. I'm just not sure that the term is quite right-

generally, in this country and for the last century, I could not say that young men were truly forced into war in a way that is the same as true enslavement. I completely agree about the hero myth, glorification of war, manipulation, and, at times, coercion of men into war. Perhaps you were referring to something else and, if so, please tell me.
I do not think there is something wrong with calling attention to injustices. I only think the discussion of our war culture as it is presently is the pressing matter.

[MadrasT]

11. Seriously?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+the+military+draft+a+form+of+slavery

It's discussed, but from what I have seen, it is generally from a libertarian/Randian perspective.

Ron Paul on the draft

Ayn Rand on the draft*:

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

-- AYN RAND

More Rand*:

"If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those "liberals" who claim that man has the "right" to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.
-- AYN RAND

Here's a whole website dedicated to the idea, where I found the Rand quotes

FWIW, I agree with you. I believe it is slavery and I am wholly opposed to the draft. If a nation doesn't have the support of its citizens to fight a war without drafting said citizens, it has no business engaging in war. I am especially opposed to drafting people just because they have penises, and non-penis-bearers being exempt from said draft. It's bullshit.


* I am not endorsing Ayn Rand, I am providing quotes addressing the matter at hand as examples.