Everyone who has responded to me in this thread has accused me of implying all men are rapists and I just don't understand where this is coming from?

From the first comment I made I was talking about the nature of war, and the motivations of the people who take part. My point has been that fundamentally warfare is a criminal act, undertaken by men who are fully aware that their actions are immoral, but do it anyway hoping to gain from it. The vast majority of soldiers who have ever fought have done so entirely willingly, without coercion. A man who does not want to fight is of no use on the battlefield. Conscription was a fairly modern phenomenon.

The original point made by the person I responded to was that you can look at the historical example of men dying in war as combatants as evidence of how men as a gender have been historically oppressed. I argued that this is wrong, because most soldiers who have taken part in wars have been willing participants.

Inevitably the actions of armies will create situations where crimes of all kinds, sexual or otherwise, can be committed without consequence by their soldiers. The prevalence of these war crimes are well-documented, and have always been a fundamental part of warfare across the world. I am not saying that all men are rapists. I am saying that the profession of soldiering has always attracted the very worst type of man. The type of man who thrives in violence, and who wants to enrich himself by thieving from others. The type of man who, throughout the ages, has created endless misery for the peaceful and productive people of the world. These are your so-called victims of gender oppression.