Men and women
By Der Voron
As you know, women are sometimes given advantages before men when it comes to such things as employment, some benefits, divorce accompanied by sharing the consorts' real estate, assets and whatever they have, though abilities of the man candidate or his real contribution to the consorts' wealth are usually higher than those of the woman. For example, if someone wants to replace, in an industry, men with women, then he or she will find that women can replace in most cases only the low-qualified workforce. In other words, women -- and this happens more often than it should -- sometimes get more than they merit, just because they are women, in order to "compensate" the fact that women were discriminated in the past when it came to education, employment etc. With this, almost everyone forgets the fact that these were different women, i.e. some women living today get compensations for the sufferings of absolutely different women, who lived and died long time ago, or who suffer in some other countries because of women discrimination unhappily widespread there.
But why cannot men have similar advantages, for the fact that it was, for at least %99, men who were and are mobilized for wars, who died and die in battles? (If you are in doubts about this number, then just read or re-read 'Stratagems' by Sextus Julius Frontinus, an ancient handbook on strategy for officers, actual nowadays, in some aspects. There is only 1 stratagem used by a woman general (Scythian Queen Thamyris against Persian King Cyrus), among about 150 stratagems by men generals).
For example (data about battles with the most terrible losses):
The battle of Chalons, or the Battle of Peoples, 451 A.D. (Romans and their allies, Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Burgundians, Westgoths, Liticians, Saxons, Riparians, and Olibriones, against the union of Huns (contemporary Hungarians) and other tribes): about 200 thousand killed.
The Civil War in the United States, 1861-1865: about 650 thousand killed (more than all American losses in the battles of 20th century);
The battle of Werden, World War I: about 500 thousand killed;
The civil war in the former Russian Empire, 1918-1921: about 5 million killed;
The Winter War (Soviet Union against Finland), 1939-1940: about 250 thousand killed;
The battle of Stalingrad, World War II: about 600 thousand killed;
The Operation Citadel, World War II: about 320 thousand killed.
(I certainly could provide more information about terrible battles and losses; but I think those provided are enough. Sapienti sat. And, for example, when one people kills another during genocide, mostly men are killed, not women.)
You will respond: how can men get "advantages" and "compensations" for the sufferings of absolutely different men, who lived long time ago and who already died, or even for the sufferings of men living now? How are these and those men connected?
OK, men don't have these "advantages and compensations". But why do women?
*Note: the author of this article is not a "machist". He just wants this problem, which exists and exerts influence on the social relationships, to be discussed.
By Der Voron
As you know, women are sometimes given advantages before men when it comes to such things as employment, some benefits, divorce accompanied by sharing the consorts' real estate, assets and whatever they have, though abilities of the man candidate or his real contribution to the consorts' wealth are usually higher than those of the woman. For example, if someone wants to replace, in an industry, men with women, then he or she will find that women can replace in most cases only the low-qualified workforce. In other words, women -- and this happens more often than it should -- sometimes get more than they merit, just because they are women, in order to "compensate" the fact that women were discriminated in the past when it came to education, employment etc. With this, almost everyone forgets the fact that these were different women, i.e. some women living today get compensations for the sufferings of absolutely different women, who lived and died long time ago, or who suffer in some other countries because of women discrimination unhappily widespread there.
But why cannot men have similar advantages, for the fact that it was, for at least %99, men who were and are mobilized for wars, who died and die in battles? (If you are in doubts about this number, then just read or re-read 'Stratagems' by Sextus Julius Frontinus, an ancient handbook on strategy for officers, actual nowadays, in some aspects. There is only 1 stratagem used by a woman general (Scythian Queen Thamyris against Persian King Cyrus), among about 150 stratagems by men generals).
For example (data about battles with the most terrible losses):
The battle of Chalons, or the Battle of Peoples, 451 A.D. (Romans and their allies, Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Burgundians, Westgoths, Liticians, Saxons, Riparians, and Olibriones, against the union of Huns (contemporary Hungarians) and other tribes): about 200 thousand killed.
The Civil War in the United States, 1861-1865: about 650 thousand killed (more than all American losses in the battles of 20th century);
The battle of Werden, World War I: about 500 thousand killed;
The civil war in the former Russian Empire, 1918-1921: about 5 million killed;
The Winter War (Soviet Union against Finland), 1939-1940: about 250 thousand killed;
The battle of Stalingrad, World War II: about 600 thousand killed;
The Operation Citadel, World War II: about 320 thousand killed.
(I certainly could provide more information about terrible battles and losses; but I think those provided are enough. Sapienti sat. And, for example, when one people kills another during genocide, mostly men are killed, not women.)
You will respond: how can men get "advantages" and "compensations" for the sufferings of absolutely different men, who lived long time ago and who already died, or even for the sufferings of men living now? How are these and those men connected?
OK, men don't have these "advantages and compensations". But why do women?
*Note: the author of this article is not a "machist". He just wants this problem, which exists and exerts influence on the social relationships, to be discussed.