WWI: Conscientious objectors Watch

ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27404266

I just stumbled on the above article as it may add wight to one of the points I made in one of the many repetitive feminism rant threads. Basically does this indicate sexism against men on a societal level? During WW1 men that were able to had an obligation to fight based on the fact they were men.

"Most tribunals took a very aggressive view, trying to catch men out and ridiculing them," - is a quote from above article

They were deemed as cowards by many for not living up to what was expected of a young man. i.e, protecting your country, women and children.

Thoughts?
0
reply
JamesGibson
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Man or woman, nobody should go to war.

I find it absolutely horrific that innocent men were forced to sacrifice their lives for a war decided by politicians. Men were forced to kill other men - other men that had done absolutely nothing wrong and were just as innocent as them.

The Conscientious Objectors were probably some of the bravest men of their time.
3
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27404266

I just stumbled on the above article as it may add wight to one of the points I made in one of the many repetitive feminism rant threads. Basically does this indicate sexism against men on a societal level? During WW1 men that were able to had an obligation to fight based on the fact they were men.

"Most tribunals took a very aggressive view, trying to catch men out and ridiculing them," - is a quote from above article

They were deemed as cowards by many for not living up to what was expected of a young man. i.e, protecting your country, women and children.

Thoughts?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends'_Ambulance_Unit

Different time. Different standards.

I'm torn on this one. Anybody who used CO as a cowards way out should be ridiculed.

An awful, awful lot of conscientious objectors signed up in non combatant roles such as stretcher bearers and although they refused to take life, they risked, and in many cases have theirs. For those conscientious objectors I always have and always will have the highest respect. e.g.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by JamesGibson)
Man or woman, nobody should go to war.

I find it absolutely horrific that innocent men were forced to sacrifice their lives for a war decided by politicians. Men were forced to kill other men - other men that had done absolutely nothing wrong and were just as innocent as them.

The Conscientious Objectors were probably some of the bravest men of their time.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by JamesGibson)
Man or woman, nobody should go to war.

I find it absolutely horrific that innocent men were forced to sacrifice their lives for a war decided by politicians. Men were forced to kill other men - other men that had done absolutely nothing wrong and were just as innocent as them.
Are you just referring to WWI or all war?
0
reply
Asariond
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
Mothers and orphans weep sleeplessly in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on the behalf of states and masters.

Conscientous objection is a good thing. It shows that you are willing to support your nation but not kill for it, and that sort of attitude is admirable. True, you can argue that war is necessary due to the tragic persistent place of violence in international diplomacy, but you can hardly call someone who wouldn't kill another person a coward. The stories of stretcher-bearers running into No-Man's Land to recover injured fellows is just as admirable as those of men charging into enemy trenches, even if the reasons for the conflict in WWI are nonsensical, convoluted, and their continued celebration is unnecessary and shows terrible historical ignorance.

As for the sexism point, I would argue that the sexism against women far outweighs that against men. Yes, men have to fight in wars (although in modern Britain we have a volunteer army, so that is a moot point), but to say that there is sexism against men 'on a societal level' has to be qualified with 'a particular societal level'. Women are easily the more discriminated-against sex in the vast majority of cases.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
I'm not a pacifist and am willing to be violent for something I deemed worthy. Imperialism isn't one of them though. I would be willing to kill someone who was threatening an innocent or family member. But I'm not willing to fight and die for king and country, an attitude that was not encouraged back then.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)

I'm torn on this one. Anybody who used CO as a cowards way out should be ridiculed.
Why though? Just because you are born a man why should you be expected to experience the very worse of the fighting on the front line in a war?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
I'm not a pacifist and am willing to be violent for something I deemed worthy. Imperialism isn't one of them though.
WW1 wasn't about Imperialism from a UK position. It was because neutral Belgium, a country who we had an obligation to defend was invaded.

I've always thought fighting for freedom, the rule of law and democracy was a worthwhile. ( There's a little bit more to the causes of WW1 than get taught in school)
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Why though? Just because you are born a man why should you be expected to experience the very worse of the fighting on the front line in a war?
It's what men have been doing since the dawn of time.

Here's another way of looking at it. Why should your son risk his life when somebody else's son chooses not to?

I understand why the tribunals were so hard on many if these COs. If society norms means that you're family is risking their lives why should somebody else not.

Take the war side out of it and replace it with taxes for example . Would you show the same compassion for somebody who objected to paying taxes?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Asariond)
As for the sexism point, I would argue that the sexism against women far outweighs that against men. Yes, men have to fight in wars (although in modern Britain we have a volunteer army, so that is a moot point), but to say that there is sexism against men 'on a societal level' has to be qualified with 'a particular societal level'. Women are easily the more discriminated-against sex in the vast majority of cases.
But just because there are other worse things doesn't mean you ignore all problems that are deemed less important. Although I would argue getting slaughtered by machine gun fire more is more oppressive than being forced to live in the kitchen if it can be considered as some kind of sexism.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It's what men have been doing since the dawn of time.

Here's another way of looking at it. Why should your son risk his life when somebody else's son chooses not to?

I understand why the tribunals were so hard on many if these COs. If society norms means that you're family is risking their lives why should somebody else not.

Take the war side out of it and replace it with taxes for example . Would you show the same compassion for somebody who objected to paying taxes?
Regardless of whether they are justified they were societal norms based on ones gender. Well that is the argument feminists (quite rightly) make when describing female oppression based on their gender.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
WW1 wasn't about Imperialism from a UK position.
I disagree but that is an argument for another thread.
0
reply
Asariond
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
But just because there are other worse things doesn't mean you ignore all problems that are deemed less important. Although I would argue getting slaughtered by machine gun fire more is more oppressive than being forced to live in the kitchen if it can be considered as some kind of sexism.
I agree with you to an extent. In case of conscription, men are discriminated against far more. But women are seen as prizes for war; need I mention the historical tendency towards rape as population control? And there are some societies, such as Soviet Russia and certain East Asian countries as well as Nazi Germany, where women have been forced to fight on pain of execution alongside men. The fact that higher-class men have always been able to escape conscription, however, suggests that another, perhaps more pressing issue to look into is classism as well as sexism.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Regardless of whether they are justified they were societal norms based on ones gender. Well that is the argument feminists (quite rightly) make when describing female oppression based on their gender.
You asked for comments about conscientious objectors and have very quickly turned this into 'wimmins issues'
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Asariond)
I agree with you to an extent. In case of conscription, men are discriminated against far more. But women are seen as prizes for war; need I mention the historical tendency towards rape as population control? And there are some societies, such as Soviet Russia and certain East Asian countries as well as Nazi Germany, where women have been forced to fight on pain of execution alongside men. The fact that higher-class men have always been able to escape conscription, however, suggests that another, perhaps more pressing issue to look into is classism as well as sexism.
the as well is the important word there.

This topic was just something I have been thinking about recently.
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You asked for comments about conscientious objectors and have very quickly turned this into 'wimmins issues'
Read my OP. I brought this up due to talking to a self described feminist about whether men faced any form of sexism in the past. So it is related. It's why I made the thread.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether these objectors received prejudice due to their gender.


Any female opinion on it?
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by JamesGibson)
Man or woman, nobody should go to war.

I find it absolutely horrific that innocent men were forced to sacrifice their lives for a war decided by politicians. Men were forced to kill other men - other men that had done absolutely nothing wrong and were just as innocent as them.

The Conscientious Objectors were probably some of the bravest men of their time.
Why?

Peace for some leaves others at peace to perpetrate mass atrocity.

Peace is not always the ethical action to take.
0
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
"...on other rough men who happened to be born elsewhere"
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by lucaf)
"...on other rough men who happened to be born elsewhere"
In the context if WW1 that was rough men who invaded a neutral country who we were treaty bound to protect.

Interesting to note though on a historical context, some of the most prolific demonstrators against CO were women. After all it was women who were sending their brothers, sons and husbands away.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (283)
15.22%
The paper was reasonable (1033)
55.57%
Not feeling great about that exam... (403)
21.68%
It was TERRIBLE (140)
7.53%

Watched Threads

View All