[mc32]

If going to war front as an infantryman were a privilege, we'd see the likes of Hollywood actors and actresses volunteer for the front as well as any wealthy folks and any other privileged folks --but they rarely do --this indicates it is not a privilege, but rather something the poor and of lesser means, those whose lives are worth less are sent to the front. It's violence, it's abuse. Sometimes someone has to endure it. I don't see how not sending one is either misogyny or misandry. Sending someone however, is both of the above; however, if we must, then I think it's the duty of men to do the fighting. Women, can of course be in support of the front lines.

[tsimionescu]

Of course it's not a privilege. But if you're saying women aren't good at it, that women need to be protected, that's misogyny. It's like saying women can't receive the death penalty because they are not mentally sound to be held responsible for their actions, which was a real misogynistic argument at one point.

Misandry would be saying men must be sent to war instead of women because they are inferior, or because they deserve a worse life, or something like that.

[bigstrat2003]

There's nothing misogynistic being said here. You're stretching the word to cover situations it just doesn't apply to.

[tsimionescu]

Misogyny is believing women are less capable than men for certain important things (there are other ways of being misogynistic, but this is one of the most common). Warfare is a very good example.

[mrguyorama]

>but they rarely do

World War 2 had a shitload of famous actors, athletes, politician's kids, etc go off to war. What are you smoking?