I never heard of a lowly conscript making it very far up in the military, from all the history I've studied. And I don't know how much respect is being shown when you put people in the front to die for you. I'd call that a very shallow respect. And which women were taken into servitude here? I don't get where that one came from, because women haven't been slaves in Western Europe for about a thousand years, and neither has men.
...
Civilians weren't just women, it wasn't the women who was wiped out and forgotten, it was the whole of the losing part. And the fact that culture glorifies soldiers is just that bit more horrific, it means every man who isn't up for getting gutted and having his limbs blown off isn't a real man.
I used general terms because "conscription" covers a lot. It includes both mandatory enlistment and something like being impressed onto a ship. As long as it isn't slavery the men were paid for their efforts and conscripted soldiers were still valued by men for, as you put it, "being a real man." Not everybody might want that status but men who fought in battle were definitely given respect compared to those who hadn't. The entire enterprise of war became a male enterprise, waged for the benefit of men in power by men and reinforced by socially imposed male values. As I said, it was definitely a negative, but not every instance of conscription being shoved into the enemy's bayonet at gunpoint. Neither did being forcibly conscripted mean you'd die (or even be maimed) and required service would eventually end.
I also said women were forced into servitude, not slavery, and as for who... the vast majority until recent times. As the elite disenfranchise lower classes by making them wage slaves, women were disenfranchised by having most options for self-sufficiency cut off and thus lost most of their agency to a man. They effectively became well cared for servants.
Neither did I claim all civilian casualties were women. Rather my point was that it was the only option available to them. Men could avoid war far easier than a woman could serve (in most societies - there were obviously some exceptions but even there the woman was considered caregiver first). See above for the whole actually being valued by society thing, which yes is terrible given our own ideals but we're talking about the value/power given to people by societies, not our own perspective on their values.
So to try and remember where this was going... No, men in the lower classes did not have it worse than women, even if they did have unique problems to them. Men today have unique problems to their situation. However their accepted roles have always had greater power in wider society and had more social flexibility if only due to the advantages that income brought. Things sucked for everybody when you were more likely to die from disease than old age and an option for another type of death hardly overshadows everything women suffered. I haven't even brought up how men were more valued for things they accomplished outside of war either.
I dunno, maybe this could be brought back to the topic somehow? I mean we are talking about main protagonist roles which typically feature overcoming enemies (i.e. combat) being typically given to male characters (if there's a set protagonist at all) which means that people actually want to play these roles more often than not.
And now I'm rambling.
* Glowcat is rambling while admiring the emote command
Author
Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' (Read 304122 times)