NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the following resolution:



Description: This resolution specifically addresses the impact of war on women, and women's contributions to conflict resolution and sustainable peace.

Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Nation States United Nations and the primary responsibility of members in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Expressing concern that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict, including as refugees and internally displaced persons, and increasingly are targeted by combatants and armed elements, and recognizing the consequent impact this has on durable peace and reconciliation.

Reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and stressing the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and the need to increase their role in decision- making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution.

Reaffirming also the need to implement fully international humanitarian and human rights law that protects the rights of women and girls during and after conflicts.

1. Expresses its willingness to incorporate a gender perspective into peacekeeping operations and urges the N.S.U.N. members to ensure that, where appropriate, field operations include a gender component.

2. Urges Member States to increase their voluntary financial, technical and logistical support for gender-sensitive training efforts, including those undertaken by relevant funds and programmes.

3. Calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective, including, among other things: (a) The special needs of women and girls during repatriation and resettlement and for rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction; (b) Measures that support local women's peace initiatives and indigenous processes for conflict resolution, and that involve women in all of the implementation mechanisms of the peace agreements; (c) Measures that ensure the protection of and respect for human rights of women and girls.

4. Calls on all parties to armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict.

5. Emphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes including those relating to sexual violence against women and girls, and in this regard, stresses the need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions.

6. Encourages all those involved in the planning for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration to consider the different needs of female and male ex-combatants and to take into account the needs of their dependants.

7. Invites an independent body to carry out a study on the impact of armed conflict on women and girls, the role of women in peace-building and the gender dimensions of peace processes and conflict resolution, and further invites them to submit a report to the N.S.U.N. on the results of this study and to make this available to all Member States of the N.S.U.N.


Thank you.

I find this proposal inherently sexist.

I find this proposal inherently sexist.
Speaking as a female myself, I'd have to vote in agreement. (with Gwenstafani, and therefore against this proposal)

I find this proposal inherently sexist.


If using external RL documentation were relevant to the game mechanics and allowed in N.S.U.N. discussion, I could show you some very gruesome eyewitness accounts of atrocities specifically targeting women that would first make your hair stand on end and then make you think twice about your comment. These are widespread accounts that happen in many wars, not just isolated examples of my choosing.

War is extreme; sexism in war can be carried out with extreme prejudice - the proposal, in this context, is not sexist.

What about militaries in which women are dominant and men the minority? And could this proposal be a little more focused? I see the following issues:

1. The treatment of female soldiers in their militaries.

2. The treatment of female civilians by an occupying force.

3. Sexual assault/rape.

4. Genocide.

5. The role of women in the military.

Frankly, the way Krioval deals with the problem is by dealing with it. Our military is trained to conform to specific standards should we be part of an occupying force. I hardly think that raping a woman is more deserving of our attention than raping a man, or killing either a man or a woman. It doesn't deserve to be singled out, in my opinion. Genocide is already dealt with by earlier resolutions, and is another issue that does not need to be addressed here.

Second, and particularly unique to Krioval, the military and civilian leadership is currently dominated by gay or bisexual men and straight women*, though notable exceptions exist. Perhaps this lends us sufficient perspective that, if a soldier, regardless of gender or biological sex, feels threatened by another soldier, the problem is resolved quickly and professionally. A soldier who threatens other soldiers is a morale problem as well as a loose cannon in an actual combat event or occupation. Sometimes, a reassignment or demotion is sufficient, while other times more stringent measures are needed, like expulsion from the armed forces or even incarceration.

Ultimately, not every complaint, or necessarily even a majority of them, is from a woman about a man. That's something that I feel needs to be kept in mind.

I hardly think that raping a woman is more deserving of our attention than raping a man, or killing either a man or a woman. It doesn't deserve to be singled out, in my opinion.
That was my main problem with the proposal, in terms of sexism and such. You make good points, and I'm in no way trying to say that they do not have any factual basis. However, are we going to attempt to stop the rapes of women, but allow men to be raped? (and while it's rare, it has been known to happen ... or, perhaps it just gets reported less often)

Writing up a gender-neutral proposal would probably be a bet, but that would really undo your entire title, termed "gender rights and war."

Section 3 is really what bothers me most, with regards to Krioval's previous statement. Just to go bit by bit ...
3. Calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective, including, among other things: (a) The special needs of women and girls during repatriation and resettlement and for rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction;
Yes, I understand that pregnant women may need special help getting around and dealing with significant change, but I resent the implication that women can't "toughen up" and deal with adversity as well as men can. The whole "special needs" mention there rubs me the wrong way and really was what provoked my first comment.

(b) Measures that support local women's peace initiatives and indigenous processes for conflict resolution, and that involve women in all of the implementation mechanisms of the peace agreements;
Local men don't ever have peace initiatives? Cutting out the mention of "women's" would probably be your best bet. And in the last statement, it would be much easier to stomach if you mentioned that a plurality of both genders (all genders, I suppose, depending on what member nation you're talking about) will be involved in the implementation mechanisms of peace agreements.


(c) Measures that ensure the protection of and respect for human rights of women and girls.
So human rights of men and boys don't matter? I would be protected under this from being insulted, terrorized, raped, etc. but my husband/brother/son/father wouldn't be? That hardly makes any sense.

I am *AGAINST* pretty much any "gender-based" proposal. I believe in equal rights for all sexes. In my nation, we do allow for maternity leave, of course, but we also give men the option of having paternity leave as well. It may be a progressive notion, but I would never support something like this, with so many needling jabs, implying in my mind that women are inferior to men, and therefore obviously need to be protected. Bad stuff happens to millions of people, of both genders, probably every day.

I find this proposal inherently sexist.

Speaking as a female myself, I'd have to vote in agreement. (with Gwenstafani, and therefore against this proposal)

Well you would, wouldnt you? you are both women.

Let me lend a male perspective. This is totally sexist!

It is a slap in the egalitarian face. This is a step backwards in the liberty of women and although the author may have had sweet 1940's sexist ideals, it reeks of total and utter bilge. I am just surprised the words "you silly girl" dont feature in the proposal.

Hey its the 21st century! Welcome.

i agree that is sexually biased in the fact it is blatantly saying that women are equal to men. also as Krioval pointed out, some armies are made up predominantly by gay or bisexual men. this resolution does nothing to protect men from rape by soldiers, or provide the ability for those that commit the rape to be brought to persurcution. noting this, there are rare instantces of rape being commited by a woman against a man, and this could be used in the instances of a woman against a gay man. i think you should go back and look at these issues, then resubmit it

What about militaries in which women are dominant and men the minority? And could this proposal be a little more focused? I see the following issues:

1. The treatment of female soldiers in their militaries.

2. The treatment of female civilians by an occupying force.

3. Sexual assault/rape.

4. Genocide.

5. The role of women in the military.

Frankly, the way Krioval deals with the problem is by dealing with it. Our military is trained to conform to specific standards should we be part of an occupying force. I hardly think that raping a woman is more deserving of our attention than raping a man, or killing either a man or a woman. It doesn't deserve to be singled out, in my opinion. Genocide is already dealt with by earlier resolutions, and is another issue that does not need to be addressed here.

Second, and particularly unique to Krioval, the military and civilian leadership is currently dominated by gay or bisexual men and straight women*, though notable exceptions exist. Perhaps this lends us sufficient perspective that, if a soldier, regardless of gender or biological sex, feels threatened by another soldier, the problem is resolved quickly and professionally. A soldier who threatens other soldiers is a morale problem as well as a loose cannon in an actual combat event or occupation. Sometimes, a reassignment or demotion is sufficient, while other times more stringent measures are needed, like expulsion from the armed forces or even incarceration.

Ultimately, not every complaint, or necessarily even a majority of them, is from a woman about a man. That's something that I feel needs to be kept in mind.

The resolution addresses civilian mothers and their children during war, and how they are used as specific targets during processes of subjugation and torture. Women and their children have become tools of war.

I'm sure that you could come up with dozens of exceptions in this weird-ass game, because there are no limitations to what kinds, or how many races or genders there are in the NS world. In theory it is infinite, which makes it kind of silly and unworkable. If you went through every N.S.U.N. resolution, for example, you could probably create a nation that would contradict all their fundamental guidelines. A resolution in this game is only ever going to be specific to particular nations and regions, they can very rarely cater for all.

Well you would, wouldnt you? you are both women.

Let me lend a male perspective. This is totally sexist!

It is a slap in the egalitarian face. This is a step backwards in the liberty of women and although the author may have had sweet 1940's sexist ideals, it reeks of total and utter bilge. I am just surprised the words "you silly girl" dont feature in the proposal.

Hey its the 21st century! Welcome.


Ignorant

The resolution addresses civilian mothers and their children during war, and how they are used as specific targets during processes of subjugation and torture. Women and their children have become tools of war.

I'm sure that you could come up with dozens of exceptions in this weird-ass game, because there are no limitations to what kinds, or how many races or genders there are in the NS world. In theory it is infinite, which makes it kind of silly and unworkable. If you went through every N.S.U.N. resolution, for example, you could probably create a nation that would contradict all their fundamental guidelines. A resolution in this game is only ever going to be specific to particular nations and regions, they can very rarely cater for all.
what? so it is okay to rape or torture (which i believe is illegal under barbaric practices res) a man, but not a woman?

Ignorant

I apologise (apologize for the Z lovers out there) if my comments were some what intolerant, however i stand by the convictions of my words.

The foolish notion that women should be protected above all others in times of war is ridiculous. These sentiments hasten to a bygone era when men where men and women stayed home and made pie for the kids.

The simple truth is that in times of war we are all victims and should all be given due concern.

If the proposal appears sexist, you have to remember that its conception is in response to a majority of sexist cultures - with nearly all real world nations being patriarchal in nature. These are the ones that are being addressed in this resolution. Countries that go to war have certain things in common, a hierachy of gender and power. Cynthia Cockburn, for example, says that:

... patriarchy, nationalism and militarism are like a type of mutual admiration society. Nationalism loves patriarchy because it provides women who will raise real patriots. Militarism loves patriarchy because women in patriarchies give their sons to be soldiers. Patriarchy loves nationalism and militarism because both systems produce unambiguously masculine men, and in general keep woman in her place.

While I foolishly forgot that there are no biological and power based hierachies or boundaries in Nation States, real world war zones are quite traditional in there prejudices. As a result I find this quote from Marcela Lagarde very apt:

... when you want to destroy a culture, or a subculture, women are the medium through which to achieve it. Women's bodies become the battleground upon which notions of nationhood or identity are fought.

Of course, in the context of Nation States there are no majorities or hierachies of behaviour or power relations, so a proposal like this can be viewed as an affront. However, if you disagree with it in RL situations, you should perhaps reevaluate your undersatnding of the message being conveyed in the proposal - it is addressing realities of war and occupation for women and their children.

The resolution addresses civilian mothers and their children during war, and how they are used as specific targets during processes of subjugation and torture. Women and their children have become tools of war.

I'm sure that you could come up with dozens of exceptions in this weird-ass game, because there are no limitations to what kinds, or how many races or genders there are in the NS world. In theory it is infinite, which makes it kind of silly and unworkable. If you went through every N.S.U.N. resolution, for example, you could probably create a nation that would contradict all their fundamental guidelines. A resolution in this game is only ever going to be specific to particular nations and regions, they can very rarely cater for all.

OOC: This "weird-ass game" is reality as far as the NSUN is concerned. Learn it. Love it. :fluffle:

IC:

I have acknowledged your concern about female and young civilians. However, male civilians are unprotected by your proposal, which to me creates a glaring inequality. As it stands, either you have never considered the possibility that a male can be raped or tortured or you are indifferent to it. In either case, it is a glaring flaw in your proposal.

Further, as others have mentioned more eloquently than have I, everybody is victimized to some degree in a war. That's what makes a war problematic in the first place. And from yet another male perspective, this is a sexist proposal. Men are equally deserving of protection from violation during wartime as women and children. The idea of "women and children first", while perhaps comforting and traditional, is not necessarily the optimal policy to follow; I advocate the position of "all civilians first" because they never volunteered for combat.

Frankly, that very few discussions on the subject of rape and sexual abuse even mention males, however tangentially, does a disservice to those men who suffer from abuse and are then societally coerced into silence. I refuse to take part in a program that would further marginalize men who feel victimized either in war or peace by either another man or a woman. Such a policy is anathema to the spirit of equality.

If the goal of this proposal is to protect civilians, then say so. Don't turn it into yet another misguided attempt to advance the cause of feminism above that of equal rights for all sexes. Women should never be placed on some sort of pedestal in my opinion, as those doing the placement are already envisioning themselves to be the masters of those women. At least that's what my history has taught me.

OOC: This "weird-ass game" is reality as far as the NSUN is concerned. Learn it. Love it. :fluffle:

IC:

I have acknowledged your concern about female and young civilians. However, male civilians are unprotected by your proposal, which to me creates a glaring inequality. As it stands, either you have never considered the possibility that a male can be raped or tortured or you are indifferent to it. In either case, it is a glaring flaw in your proposal.

Further, as others have mentioned more eloquently than have I, everybody is victimized to some degree in a war. That's what makes a war problematic in the first place. And from yet another male perspective, this is a sexist proposal. Men are equally deserving of protection from violation during wartime as women and children. The idea of "women and children first", while perhaps comforting and traditional, is not necessarily the optimal policy to follow; I advocate the position of "all civilians first" because they never volunteered for combat.

Frankly, that very few discussions on the subject of rape and sexual abuse even mention males, however tangentially, does a disservice to those men who suffer from abuse and are then societally coerced into silence. I refuse to take part in a program that would further marginalize men who feel victimized either in war or peace by either another man or a woman. Such a policy is anathema to the spirit of equality.

Ha, Ha, ... Man, the ignorance in this place is mind boggling.

Do and vote for what you will, but please do some homework on the issue first. Find out the reasons why I might be proposing something like this.

And yes, Nation States is a game. Maybe your problem is distinguishing reality from fiction.

Ha, Ha, ... Man, the ignorance in this place is mind boggling.

Do and vote for what you will, but please do some homework on the issue first. Find out the reasons why I might be proposing something like this.
Why is it ignorant to ask about what your proposal is doing? The impression gained is that you simply do not care about men's rights. That's going far beyond feminism.

Why is it ignorant to ask about what your proposal is doing? The impression gained is that you simply do not care about men's rights. That's going far beyond feminism.

Your saying that I do not care about men's rights because I don't mention them is an assumption. The resolution addresses women and children because they are by far ... by far [I cannot emphasise this enough], in the majority [real world] of those civilians who are found in the situation of rape, torture etc. It is addressing and making aware the uses of this kind of deliberate subjugation during war time.

Ha, Ha, ... Man, the ignorance in this place is mind boggling.

Do and vote for what you will, but please do some homework on the issue first. Find out the reasons why I might be proposing something like this.


Again, you accuse the members of ignorance. May i point out the glaringly obvious. The Ignorant are saying that you are ignorant of one half of the populace in this proposal. While the idea was noble, and i believe it was, it is extending rights of female civilians above that of male civilians and is therefore promotes inequality between the sexes in times of strife.

Our opinions are not ignorance, but meerly differences of opinion based on how we read and understand your proposal.

I suggest a rewrite.

Your saying that I do not care about men's rights because I don't mention them is an assumption. The resolution addresses women and children because they are by far ... by far , in the majority [real world] of those civilians who are found in the situation of rape, torture etc. It is addressing and making aware the uses of this kind of deliberate subjugation during war time.
this is the key word here, real world. heads up buddy, this [I]isnt the real world. each nation has their different situations, different sexual persuations. to target one group means, whether you mean it or not, that you are excluding or not addressing the rights of others

Your saying that I do not care about men's rights because I don't mention them is an assumption. The resolution addresses women and children because they are by far ... by far [I cannot emphasise this enough], in the majority [real world] of those civilians who are found in the situation of rape, torture etc. It is addressing and making aware the uses of this kind of deliberate subjugation during war time.

And this would be easily addressed by pointing out the plight of civilians in combat zones, emphasizing the special hazards of being a woman or child, and then proposing a blanket set of restrictions on how all civilians can be treated in war zones. Go figure. It'd address the equality of sexes issue while specifically drawing attention to places in which women are specifically targeted.

And for the record, calling me ignorant or insisting that my position is one of ignorance (subtle differences between the two, I admit) is not the best way to convince me of the efficacy of one's proposal.

Again, you accuse the members of ignorance. May i point out the glaringly obvious. The Ignorant are saying that you are ignorant of one half of the populace in this proposal. While the idea was noble, and i believe it was, it is extending rights of female civilians above that of male civilians and is therefore promotes inequality between the sexes in times of strife.

Our opinions are not ignorance, but meerly differences of opinion based on how we read and understand your proposal.

I suggest a rewrite.

I've made it clear several times now that this proposal is specific to women and children living in a time of war. Did you not read my other post about why women are specifically targeted during war, and the quotes that, hopefully, give the reasons strength?

And it does show ignorance because they fail to take into account the glaringly obvious accounts of women and children during war [times of strife?] .

Alright, what category is this proposal under? And what strength?

Your saying that I do not care about men's rights because I don't mention them is an assumption. The resolution addresses women and children because they are by far ... by far [I cannot emphasise this enough], in the majority [real world] of those civilians who are found in the situation of rape, torture etc. It is addressing and making aware the uses of this kind of deliberate subjugation during war time.
Children are tortured more than men in war? That's silly.

Why should it matter that many of the men who get tortured are combatants, rather than civilians?

I find what I interpret as your condescending attitude in "making aware" mildly insulting. Few posters here are unaware of what happens in war. The same information doesn't necessarily lead to the same conclusions.

The first couple of posts on this thread were from women who found the proposal discriminatory. Perhaps it would be wise for you to re-read your proposal with a fresh eye to try to discern what united them in opposition.

this is the key word here, real world. heads up buddy, this isnt the real world. each nation has their different situations, different sexual persuations. to target one group means, whether you mean it or not, that you are excluding or not addressing the rights of others

Heads up buddy! I've already addressed the real world reference in another post. Learn to read.

I've made it clear several times now that this proposal is specific to women and children living in a time of war. Did you not read my other post about why women are specifically targeted during war, and the quotes that, hopefully, give the reasons strength?

And it does show ignorance because they fail to take into account the glaringly obvious accounts of women and children during war [times of strife?] .
in that case this is illegal under the UBR in that all human beings are to be treated equal under law. this violates that in that while it supports a certain group, it does not cover others, and is thus treating people unequal, thus is in violation of UBR. while i commend your intentions, as stated in other areas, we will not support a proposal that is seen to not promote equality, in being discriminatory for or against a certain group

Heads up buddy! I've already addressed the real world reference in another post. Learn to read.
The Culai, you are acting in a very condescending manner towards people who are putting forth their honest opinion. Please do not continue.

And for the record, calling me ignorant or insisting that my position is one of ignorance (subtle differences between the two, I admit)

When I posted the word "ignorant" I neither made it clear whether I was refering to you or your comment.

... not the best way to convince me of the efficacy of one's proposal.

And?

in that case this is illegal under the UBR in that all human beings are to be treated equal under law. this violates that in that while it supports a certain group, it does not cover others, and is thus treating people unequal, thus is in violation of UBR. while i commend your intentions, as stated in other areas, we will not support a proposal that is seen to not promote equality, in being discriminatory for or against a certain group

While it's comforting to know that, as a male, I have the right to become pregnant and give birth, I don't think your reasoning helps women in the specific situations that I have outlined. Your reasoning does not take into account context.

Heads up buddy! I've already addressed the real world reference in another post. Learn to read.
maybe you should too. there are so many problems, as stated, within this proposal, that there is doubt that it would gain approval. if you make the suggested rewrite, you might actually get people to support this, as i do support the intentions, not the limited scope to one or two groups. and as stated by Enn, and i will do a translation here, rubbing people the wrong way will not gain you support, generally the opposite

Wow. Rude and sexist. Such a "delightful" combination.

The Culai, you are acting in a very condescending manner towards people who are putting forth their honest opinion. Please do not continue.

No, I'm just responding.

My comments about ignorance are valid in that it is my belief that if people had any understanding about women, children and war they would not be saying the things that they are. And as you say, on that front, I am just putting forward my honest opinion on the matter.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
May i remind you that this is the NSUN forum and not the school playground!

May i add, My daddy is better than your daddy, and to finish, Nah nah na na nah!

:D

rubbing people the wrong way will not gain you support, generally the opposite


You have a real knack of stating the obvious, don't you? I already know that this place is full of sycophants who would rather be socially groomed than argue the points raised in a proposal. How relevant is it, and what does it matter how nice or compromising people are in the context of a debate?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
May i remind you that this is the NSUN forum and not the school playground!

May i add, My daddy is better than your daddy, and to finish, Nah nah na na nah!

:D

How does that add to the debate?

You have a real knack of stating the obvious, don't you? I already know that this place is full of sycophants who would rather be socially groomed than argue the points raised in a proposal. How relevant is it, and what does it matter how nice or compromising people are in the context of a debate [as long as that argument stays within the confines of the topic, free of ad hominem attacks]?
I'm sorry, I thought we were debating the points raised in the proposal. Specifically, the fact that there are no protections of any kind for half of the worlds population.

Now, I am trying to remain civil here, as I believe the rest of us are. However, your call for an ending to ad hominem attacks is extremely rich. You are the person crying 'ignorant' at people who have read your proposal differently, you have implied that Resistancia is unable to read, and now you are calling us all sycophants.

[edit] I now see that you have removed the part relating to ad hominem attacks. Very well.

How does that add to the debate?

It doent! nor does degenerating the debate into a name calling session. I was simply forcing home the point that it had started to degenerate.

You have a real knack of stating the obvious, don't you? I already know that this place is full of sycophants who would rather be socially groomed than argue the points raised in a proposal. How relevant is it, and what does it matter how nice or compromising people are in the context of a debate?

OOC: Uh, my first post addressed the issues you presented in your proposal. You chose to ignore those while decrying others' ignorance (how's that for irony?) and accusing everybody of ulterior motives. Now, I may not be the most intelligent man alive, but while I was at MIT, there was a group called the "Social Justice Cooperative", and their goal was to be as far-left as possible. Their "utopian" ideals included forcibly silencing everybody who disagreed with their way of thinking, which involved women being treated specially and above men, and socialism being advocated above capitalism. I have no problem with people speaking their mind. But if you've come to debate, I suggest you do so, rather than dismissing out of hand all arguments that you don't like. Otherwise, you're no better than that which you rail so vociferously against.

okay, The Culai, here is a constructive piece of advice for you, in regards to the proposal: broaden the scope so it covers all civilians. you will gain more support for it. and also read the rules before submitting a proposal, since there are resolutions in place against descrimination, and this proposal, as it stands at this point in time can actually be seen as descriminatory, as it only covers one sector

If the proposal appears sexist, you have to remember that its conception is in response to a majority of sexist cultures - with nearly all real world nations being patriarchal in nature. These are the ones that are being addressed in this resolution. Countries that go to war have certain things in common, a hierachy of gender and power. Cynthia Cockburn, for example, says that:

... patriarchy, nationalism and militarism are like a type of mutual admiration society. Nationalism loves patriarchy because it provides women who will raise real patriots. Militarism loves patriarchy because women in patriarchies give their sons to be soldiers. Patriarchy loves nationalism and militarism because both systems produce unambiguously masculine men, and in general keep woman in her place.

While I foolishly forgot that there are no biological and power based hierachies or boundaries in Nation States, real world war zones are quite traditional in there prejudices. As a result I find this quote from Marcela Lagarde very apt:

... when you want to destroy a culture, or a subculture, women are the medium through which to achieve it. Women's bodies become the battleground upon which notions of nationhood or identity are fought.

Of course, in the context of Nation States there are no majorities or hierachies of behaviour or power relations, so a proposal like this can be viewed as an affront. However, if you disagree with it in RL situations, you should perhaps reevaluate your undersatnding of the message being conveyed in the proposal - it is addressing realities of war and occupation for women and their children.
OOC:
And I should care about Cynthia Cockburn's opinion because... because she is an idealistic and unrealistic academic? Because she's a man-hating lesbian? Because of her anti-semitic credentials?

Yes, I know who she is. No, quoting her doesn't impress me.

Since you're basing all of this on RL anyhow, let's go with some of the big ones.

How many women and children were raped and tortured in WW I? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

OK, we'll try again. How many women and children were raped and tortured in WW II? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Up to the present day, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Let's try further back in history, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Hundred Years War? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Farther back, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

How silly of me. All of those conflicts included a western country (more or less) on at least one side.

Let us look at the arab world instead. How many women and children were raped and tortured in The Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Oops. Asia, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Korean invasion of Japan? Oops - bad example. OK, let's go with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, or the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. How many women and children were raped and tortured? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

OK, I give up. I don't know enough about Indian, African or pre-Columbian South American military history to cite a really major war in any of those places.

Your assertion that women and children are disproportionately at risk really only passes the laugh test for small-scale ethnic conflicts and possibly for some religious conflicts.

You have a real knack of stating the obvious, don't you? I already know that this place is full of sycophants who would rather be socially groomed than argue the points raised in a proposal. How relevant is it, and what does it matter how nice or compromising people are in the context of a debate?
Wow. You managed to flame the entire UN forum in one shot. Priceless.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta have just launched a full battery of nuclear missiles at your nationstate.

So, I guess you don't need to worry about your women and children being tortured anymore.

Wow. You managed to flame the entire UN forum in one shot. Priceless.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta have just launched a full battery of nuclear missiles at your nationstate.

So, I guess you don't need to worry about your women and children being tortured anymore.

Krioval would first like, in the spirit of this proposal, to seize all the male civilians. Raijin, Kiv, Darvek, and Koro would very much like the opportunity to demonstrate the weaknesses of this proposal (and of The Culai's male citizens). Don't worry, they'll all get safewords, which is more than they're probably getting right now.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
May i remind you that this is the NSUN forum and not the school playground!

May i add, My daddy is better than your daddy, and to finish, Nah nah na na nah!

:D
See, this is exactly what I was talking about in response to your post in favor of the open door policy in the thread about limiting the number of nations.

Krioval would first like, in the spirit of this proposal, to seize all the male civilians. Raijin, Kiv, Darvek, and Koro would very much like the opportunity to demonstrate the weaknesses of this proposal (and of The Culai's male citizens). Don't worry, they'll all get safewords, which is more than they're probably getting right now.
Oops. Sorry, too late.

OOC:
And I should care about Cynthia Cockburn's opinion because... because she is an idealistic and unrealistic academic? Because she's a man-hating lesbian? Because of her anti-semitic credentials?

Yes, I know who she is. No, quoting her doesn't impress me.

Since you're basing all of this on RL anyhow, let's go with some of the big ones.

How many women and children were raped and tortured in WW I? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

OK, we'll try again. How many women and children were raped and tortured in WW II? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Up to the present day, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Let's try further back in history, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Hundred Years War? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Farther back, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

How silly of me. All of those conflicts included a western country (more or less) on at least one side.

Let us look at the arab world instead. How many women and children were raped and tortured in The Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

Oops. Asia, then. How many women and children were raped and tortured in the Korean invasion of Japan? Oops - bad example. OK, let's go with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, or the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. How many women and children were raped and tortured? How many male civilians? And how many combatants died? Oh, the number of combatant deaths dwarfed the number of civilian rapes and tortures, did it?

OK, I give up. I don't know enough about Indian, African or pre-Columbian South American military history to cite a really major war in any of those places.

Your assertion that women and children are disproportionately at risk really only passes the laugh test for small-scale ethnic conflicts and possibly for some religious conflicts.

That response only proves how much you don't understand the proposal.

That response only proves how much you don't understand the proposal.
Can you please explain why you believe this to be so, rather than merely giving a single sentance? Do you really believe that a one line response can adequately cover each and every point made by Asshelmetta?

Well, I guess you have all quietened down now, so I shall say thank you for your participation. Your responses helped me very much. You can find the very real full version of UN Resolution 1325 (2000) here:

http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf

Thanks again, to the participants.

the real UN resolution has nothing to do with it, The Culai. stop using RL examples, especially opinionated ones like Asshelmetta pointed out, to back your proposal. we are only saying one thing is wrong about it, in that it is inherently sexist. you call us ignorant, where as you are being ignorant in not aknowledging that we are giving u advice to make this proposal passable. and i will re-emphasise(sp?): this is NOT the real UN or real life. this is nationstates, and in that there are rules. as i see it at the moment, this proposal, as it stands, breaks those rules, as it violates previous resolutions, in that it is discriminatory. if you take into account our advice, and change it to cover a broader area, it will be legal and passable.

the real UN resolution has nothing to do with it, The Culai. stop using RL examples, especially opinionated ones like Asshelmetta pointed out, to back your proposal. we are only saying one thing is wrong about it, in that it is inherently sexist. you call us ignorant, where as you are being ignorant in not aknowledging that we are giving u advice to make this proposal passable. and i will re-emphasise(sp?): this is NOT the real UN or real life. this is nationstates, and in that there are rules. as i see it at the moment, this proposal, as it stands, breaks those rules, as it violates previous resolutions, in that it is discriminatory. if you take into account our advice, and change it to cover a broader area, it will be legal and passable.

I obviouly did not make myself clear. I was using a real UN resolution to record reactions that it would receive in this gaming environ. I've been doing it for a while now, as part of a paper I am writing.

Thanks again.

Have fun!

I obviouly did not make myself clear. I was using a real UN resolution to record reactions that it would receive in this gaming environ. I've been doing it for a while now, as part of a paper I am writing.

Thanks again.

Have fun!
Hang on.
Are you seriously saying that this entire debate was about a study you are undertaking?

I obviouly did not make myself clear. I was using a real UN resolution to record reactions that it would receive in this gaming environ. I've been doing it for a while now, as part of a paper I am writing.
When you write your paper on the ignorance of gamers in online forums, please be sure to mention that you completely ignored the rules of behavior set forth for our posters to follow, in favor of deliberately flaming people who gave honest responses. But then, that might skew the conclusion you had already reached before your made your initial post.

Do it again, and I'll grant you a disinvitation to these forums. Thanks for playing.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

I obviouly did not make myself clear. I was using a real UN resolution to record reactions that it would receive in this gaming environ. I've been doing it for a while now, as part of a paper I am writing.

Thanks again.

Have fun!

Raises some interesting ethical questions, considering that even people who are manipulated in studies are often aware that they are at least participating in some study. Not to mention that you couldn't even leave the UN resolution there for comments, but felt compelled to alter the results of your "study" by injecting irrelevant comments into the issue. Thus, your results are effectively meaningless, though I doubt you've got the intellectual integrity to own up to your efforts to skew the data.

When you write your paper on the ignorance of gamers in online forums, please be sure to mention that you completely ignored the rules of behavior set forth for our posters to follow, in favor of deliberately flaming people who gave honest responses. But then, that might skew the conclusion you had already reached before your made your initial post.

Do it again, and I'll grant you a disinvitation to these forums. Thanks for playing.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

I'm sorry about the flaming, but that was part of the research. Hopefully it was polite enough flaming - if that's possible.

I haven't reached any conclusions as yet, and I don't suppose I will until I have synthesised the data.

I can post you a copy when I have finished if you like [and after peer review and submission, of course].

Thanks again.

When you write your paper on the ignorance of gamers in online forums, please be sure to mention that you completely ignored the rules of behavior set forth for our posters to follow, in favor of deliberately flaming people who gave honest responses. But then, that might skew the conclusion you had already reached before your made your initial post.

Do it again, and I'll grant you a disinvitation to these forums. Thanks for playing.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team
second that. there are rules to be followed. this isnt the kind of place to hold this kind of study, and the fact that you ignored the rules also defines your level of ignorance. while there is mention that NS can be used to help studies, there is nothing to say that the people using it can be the subject of a study. and since you didnt ask our permission, i believe i am right in assuming that your doing this is illegal in the real world

I obviouly did not make myself clear. I was using a real UN resolution to record reactions that it would receive in this gaming environ. I've been doing it for a while now, as part of a paper I am writing.

Thanks again.

Have fun!
That's pretty weak.

"Prove it."

I think one of the most pointedly ironic moments (except for dissenters being labeled "ignorant" while the originating poster demonstrated ignorance at nearly every turn) is that I was personally accused of being unable to separate fact from fiction. Strangely enough, by entering into a game where the rules are spelled out quite clearly, I have managed to follow those rules rather than drag RL baggage into this environment. Then, when I'm done for the evening, I turn off my computer and happily (or not) return to RL concerns, including but hardly limited to the state of world conflicts. It's funny that I'm about to be the subject of a biased "study" on my ignorance of RL politics when RL politics don't apply to the game world. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what helps make me a good scientist (in training, at least) - I can differentiate between useful and useless comparisons, and I don't need to fudge data to make a coherent point.

Raises some interesting ethical questions, considering that even people who are manipulated in studies are often aware that they are at least participating in some study. Not to mention that you couldn't even leave the UN resolution there for comments, but felt compelled to alter the results of your "study" by injecting irrelevant comments into the issue. Thus, your results are effectively meaningless, though I doubt you've got the intellectual integrity to own up to your efforts to skew the data.

The ethical questions were not an issue. Forums such as these are predominantly annonomous, and people are often role-playing. The participation in forums are also voluntary by their very nature. I did not force anyone to do anything. Many studies such as this have been carried out, without harm to the participants involved.

Without knowing what my study is I can understand your confusion over what my future conclusions may be. I can assure you that this section of the thesis is only a minor part, and what I am writing about in relation to it will be very specific, and unlikely to be meaningless in the overall scope of the project.

the fact that you ignored the rules also defines your level of ignorance.
Don't respond to bad behavior with bad behavior, Resistancia. The rules apply to the rest of you too.

It's funny that I'm about to be the subject of a biased "study" on my ignorance of RL politics when RL politics don't apply to the game world.

The study is not about this topic at all. As I said I can send you a copy when it has been processed if you like.

I think one of the most pointedly ironic moments (except for dissenters being labeled "ignorant" while the originating poster demonstrated ignorance at nearly every turn) is that I was personally accused of being unable to separate fact from fiction. Strangely enough, by entering into a game where the rules are spelled out quite clearly, I have managed to follow those rules rather than drag RL baggage into this environment. Then, when I'm done for the evening, I turn off my computer and happily (or not) return to RL concerns, including but hardly limited to the state of world conflicts. It's funny that I'm about to be the subject of a biased "study" on my ignorance of RL politics when RL politics don't apply to the game world. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what helps make me a good scientist (in training, at least) - I can differentiate between useful and useless comparisons, and I don't need to fudge data to make a coherent point.
Good point. We're working on a Truth In Science resolution proposal on *teh board which must not be named*.
I'll be sure to reference your post in the discussion.

The ethical questions were not an issue. Forums such as these are predominantly annonomous, and people are often role-playing. The participation in forums are also voluntary by their very nature. I did not force anyone to do anything. Many studies such as this have been carried out, without harm to the participants involved.

Without knowing what my study is I can understand your confusion over what my future conclusions may be. I can assure you that this section of the thesis is only a minor part, and what I am writing about in relation to it will be very specific, and unlikely to be meaningless in the overall scope of the project.

I find it unfortunate that you consider ethical concerns "beneath you" in some way. As a scientist, I can assure you that intentionally skewing data to achieve a "desirable" result is contemptible. That you posted here under completely false pretenses, to me, is unacceptible and manipulative. In short, it doesn't belong in a case study unless the subject matter is "the effects of intentionally misleading people about a role playing matter", and even then, permission of some sort is usually required.

Don't respond to bad behavior with bad behavior, Resistancia. The rules apply to the rest of you too.
okay, i agree with you there, but i also dont like to take part in a study that:
a) i dont actually know i am in, and
b) i dont want to be in.
everyone is told to read the rules, and i was personally insulted in some of the comments. as i said, whilst there is a part on the site stating that nationstates could be used as a learning resource, i dont see where it says the people using it could be subject of studies, and would prefer to actually be asked in the future if i want to partake. and especialy since this user decided to do their study in an area that is kind of important to the games mechanics.

I find it unfortunate that you consider ethical concerns "beneath you" in some way. As a scientist, I can assure you that intentionally skewing data to achieve a "desirable" result is contemptible. That you posted here under completely false pretenses, to me, is unacceptible and manipulative. In short, it doesn't belong in a case study unless the subject matter is "the effects of intentionally misleading people about a role playing matter", and even then, permission of some sort is usually required.
That's funny.

After she claimed everything she'd said was under false pretenses, why would you believe her now?

Truthfully, I don't.

I find it unfortunate that you consider ethical concerns "beneath you" in some way. As a scientist, I can assure you that intentionally skewing data to achieve a "desirable" result is contemptible. That you posted here under completely false pretenses, to me, is unacceptible and manipulative. In short, it doesn't belong in a case study unless the subject matter is "the effects of intentionally misleading people about a role playing matter", and even then, permission of some sort is usually required.

I'm not quite sure that I follow. Ethical concerns are a priority and I checked these before I began. For the reasons that I provided, there are no ethical concerns. I cannot see where any damage was done.

As for my study being skewed, I really don't think that anyone can comment since you are not familiar with what I am doing. The data that I have from this and other forums will not be skewed, I am looking for certain things to evolve that are irrelevant to the points you raise, though you would not know this because you are not familiar with my study. As I said, this is just a very small component. If you are really that interested I can tell you that it is a study in linguistics.

I'm not quite sure that I follow. Ethical concerns are a priority and I checked these before I began. For the reasons that I provided, there are no ethical concerns. I cannot see where any damage was done.

As for my study being skewed, I really don't think that anyone can comment since you are not familiar with what I am doing. The data that I have from this and other forums will not be skewed, I am looking for certain things to evolve that are irrelevant to the points you raise, though you would not know this because you are not familiar with my study. As I said, this is just a very small component. If you are really that interested I can tell you that that it is linguistics study.
OOC: there is an ethical concern: you didnt ask permission form participants before running this study


putting all this study BS aside...

IC: we suggest that you do the revisions to alter the proposal and submit it, as it would be very good with the alterations, and be very good for NSUN conciderations. (just next time dont use RL references ;) )

there is an ethical concern: you didnt ask permission form participants before running this study

Ok, we're going in circles here.

I apologise if I upset anyone, but by the very nature of forums such as these ethical concerns are very minimal. They are anonymous, role-played and participation is voluntary.

I will take what you have said into consideration, but really, in the overall project this is a very minimal section, and does not rely on manipulation or skewing of data.

Thanks

Ok, we're going in circles here.

I apologise if I upset anyone, but by the very nature of forums such as these ethical concerns are very minimal. They are anonymous, role-played and participation is voluntary.

I will take what you have said into consideration, but really, in the overall project this is a very minimal section, and does not rely on manipulation or skewing of data.

Thanks
i dont see it as minimal. as you said they are role-played, so might not show the normal view of the person, and i dont believe they are anonymous. if we all had guest as our title, might be different, but since it is a name, that represents an individual, then it is not anonymous, because that name can be pecieved as a psudenym(sp?). if this was on a forum where i was using the name Lynx Raven Raide, i would be even more upset, because that name is very much a representation of me.

Illegal.



And Vastiva will never support this piece of sexist camel dung!


(Additional commentary courtesy of General Riva Sola al-Din, Commander in Chief, Vastivan Armed Services)

Err... Vastiva, you seem to have, well, skipped a rather important part of this thread. Namely, the bit about it 'just being a study', and the ensuing conflagration caused by that admission.

Err... Vastiva, you seem to have, well, skipped a rather important part of this thread. Namely, the bit about it 'just being a study', and the ensuing conflagration caused by that admission.
while this is concidered a study by the author, it is still a proposal on a UN issue. Vastiva has actually confirmed my own thoughts on the proposal, as i was unsure and thought it was skirting very close to being illegal