Creative Destruction

October 14, 2006

Denying, Dismissing, Minimising, and Ignoring the Harm to Men

Filed under: Feminist Issues — Daran @ 2:41 pm

Me (in the context of the war in Iraq):

[F]eminists typically do view the harm solely in terms of its impact upon women, while denying, minimising, and ignoring the harm to men.

I should also have said “dismissing“. I should clarify that by “feminism”, I mean mainstream feminism, as exemplified by the bloggers and typical commenters at Alas. I also mean radical feminism, as exemplified by the bloggers and typical commenters at the Margins. I do not mean to include such individuals as Christine Hof-Sommers, Wendy McElroy, and Cathy Young. I think that’s a fair exclusion, because mainsteam feminism itself appears to reject these people, and their ilk.

curiousgyrl:

I dont think that is a fair characterization. A fairly old development in feminist thinking/theory is the notion of ‘gender’ as a relationship between humans–both ‘men’ and ‘women.’ The change over last decade from university Women’s Studies Departments to departmetns of Gender and Sexuality was largely made to make exactly the point that feminism is about the negative impact of gender opression on society as a whole.

I assume that the feminism I see on the web, and the feminism I have encountered in Real Life in the tiny corner of the world which I inhabit, are typical of feminism as it is practised elsewhere in the western World. I hesitate to comment on Gender Studies Departments, since I have never attended one, but it is not immediately clear to me that “gender studies” necessarily equals “feminism”. Nor is it clear to me that they differ in practice. It does not follow that the rebadging of “women’s studies” as “gender studies” has been accompanied by a meaningful expansion of the topic area, or a shift in the analytical norms. An example of such a rebadging can be found in Mary Anne Warren’s 1985 book Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection:

By analogy, gendercide would be the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular sex (or gender). Other terms, such as “gynocide” and “femicide,” have been used to refer to the wrongful killing of girls and women. But “gendercide” is a sex-neutral term, in that the victims may be either male or female. There is a need for such a sex-neutral term, since sexually discriminatory killing is just as wrong when the victims happen to be male. The term also calls attention to the fact that gender roles have often had lethal consequences, and that these are in important respects analogous to the lethal consequences of racial, religious, and class prejudice.

As Dr. Adam Jones, founder of Gendercide Watch observes:

Warren explores the deliberate extermination of women through analysis of such subjects as female infanticide, maternal mortality, witch-hunts in early modern Europe, and other atrocities and abuses against women. […] The difficulty with Warren’s framing of gendercide, though — and this is true for the feminist analysis of gender-selective human-rights abuses as a whole — is that the inclusive definition is not matched by an inclusive analysis of the mass killing of non-combatant men.

Had Warren stuck to “femicide” or a similar formulation, then her treatise might have been guilty of no more than ignoring similar atrocities committed against men. By using inclusive terminology, the implication is that she is covering the entire spectrum of sex-selective killing. Therefore the absence of sex-selective killing of men from her analysis implies that such killings do not exist, or are insignificant.

In other words, she did not merely ignore sex-selective killings of men. By implication, she denied them which, as a perusal of just a few of Gendercide Watch’s case studies will show, is tantamount to holocaust denial.

Here’s an example of a feminist minimising the harm to men:

However, there’s strong evidence that for girls and women in particular (but not exclusively), things have gotten much worse since we invaded [Iraq]

My italics. To Amp’s credit, he doesn’t completely ignore the effect on men and boys – unlike many feminists, he gives them a parenthetical nod. But the implication of the italices portion is clear – It’s less bad for males.

A priori, that statement may or may not be true. In the complete absence of any analysis whatsoever of just how much worse things had gotten for males, I couldn’t see how such a statement could be justified, so I asked him. His reply:

Daran, provide me with some evidence that non-combatant men have been killed more than non-combatant women. Provide me with an example of an important Iraqi political/religious leaders saying that if Iraqi men are under virtual house arrest, that’s a good thing. Provide me with evidence that Iraqi men are being raped or sold into sexual slavery at anywhere near the rate that Iraqi women are.

Notice how he shifted the burden of proof onto me. Nevertheless, I responded here, and here.

curiousgyrl:

I know that BPHMT is often derided, but that doesnt mean that most of us think that it isn’t true.

BPHMT at it’s most derisory is a rhetorical device used by feminists to dismiss male victimisation. But even when it’s treated seriously, it is a minimising discourse, which I critique here.

Its just not ALWAYS the most relevant point.

The problem with feminism is that it’s not EVER the most relevant point. Here are a couple of questions I put to Barry:

Can [Barry] identify more than a handful [of mainstream feminists] who have blogged honestly about the catastrophic gender-selective targeting of men for slaughter in Iraq and elsewhere? Can he identify any?

Barry’s honest answer was “no and no”. And to his credit, he has addressed the issue in subsequent posts, though he has never lead on the subject. I’ll put the same two questions to curiousgyrl: Can she identify more than a handful of mainstream feminists who have blogged honestly about the catastrophic sex-selective targetting of men for slaughter in Iraq and elsewhere? Can she identify any, other than Barry’s recent posts? I have a few more questions. How is it that Barry, who is unquestionably well-read on the subject of the Iraq war, could have been unaware of the catastrophic sex-selective targetting of men for slaughter? Is curiousgyrl aware of it? If not, why not? If so, how did she become aware of it? Not through feminism, or a “gender studies” class, I’ll bet.

The problem with feminism is that it concludes that women are more oppressed than men, but in making that judgement, it looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression through a telescope. Backwards. Pointing at the ground. With the lens covers still on. And both eyes closed.

35 Comments »

  1. Daran, we could as easily say the problem with dismissing feminism is that it concludes that men are more oppressed than women, but in making that judgement, it looks at male oppression through a microscope, and female oppression through a telescope. Backwards. Pointing at the ground. With the lens cover still on. And both eyes closes.

    Comment by Marcella Chester — October 14, 2006 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

  2. Marcella, that would also be wrong.

    Comment by Robert — October 14, 2006 @ 7:20 pm | Reply

  3. I plan to respond to this, just not tonight as I’m running out the door.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 14, 2006 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  4. quickly,I’ll refer you this interview, but I’ll post more complete thoughts in the am
    http://www.motherjones.com/arts/qa/1999/09/faludi.html

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 14, 2006 @ 7:52 pm | Reply

  5. Marcella, I don’t understand your point. You seem to be saying that criticising feminism necessarily entails minimising the oppression of women. I don’t see the logical connection there, and in any case, the Gendercide Watch website provides a counter example, as a perusal of it’s case studies on Gendercides against women and girls will show. None of these are given a trivialising treatment. Moreover, when attrocities committed against the “other” sex – the sex not primarily targetted in the particular event or institution studied – rise to the level of gendercide, they are also documented in the case studies

    Perhaps you’re suggesting that I am guilty of denying, dismissing, minimising, or ignoring harms to women. If so, then please cite where you think I’ve done that, because I don’t think I have. I’ll cite one counterexample:

    Women’s disprivilege in the workplace is evidenced by the pay gap … They’re mass-raped in war atrocities; subject to sexual enslavement and trafficking in Thailand and elsewhere, many of them literally fucked to death; thousands – exclusively women – have been murdered in “˜honour’ killings in Pakistan; while newborn baby girls are slaughtered in their millions in India and China.

    These and many others are serious issues which warrent our attention and activism…

    The list was intended to be an incomplete, non-exhaustive overview of some of the issues that rightly concern feminists and should concern any socially aware individual. I hope the phrase “fucked to death” does not come across as trivialising. Quite the opposite: it was intended to convey using the starkest possible language just what an atrocity forced prostitution/sexual slavery is.

    Finally it occurs to me that your remark might be directed at antifeminists and men’s rights activists in general. I agree. I’ve said before that the men’s movement is “a lunatic fringe with no discernable moderate mainstream“. But it’s a poor defence of feminism, to say that feminists are no worse than MRAs.

    Comment by Daran — October 15, 2006 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  6. curiousgyrl, I look forward to your thoughts, and thanks for the cite, but I specifically asked for “feminists who have blogged honestly about the catastrophic sex-selective targetting of men for slaughter in Iraq and elsewhere“.

    There’s a reason for the restriction in the topic and discussion spaces. Put simply, the further you have to go to find your example, the stronger the indication is that the example not typical. I call this the “garden test”. The kinds of bird I can see by looking out of my window are likely to be typical for the environment. If I have to travel 500 miles to see a particular kind of bird, it’s probably not typical.

    You might object that I didn’t abide by this rule in citing Warren’s book. The purpose of that reference was to show that the adoption of gender-inclusive language did not not imply gender-inclusive analysis. I made no claim that this disconnect was typical (although I think it is). It was, however remiss of me to use it as my only example of denial. Warren’s book is exactly on point, unlike Faludi’s, but it’s not a blog. Here’s an example which is:

    At The Goddess, Morgaine said:

    80% of the casualties of war are women and children

    In a comment, I challenged this, citing my own analysis of the first Lancet study into Iraq war casualties. Morgaine chose to reject these peer-reviewed figures in favour of a news report, which attributed the claim to an ICRC report. But this attribution was simply wrong. As I showed here, the referenced report simply does not make this claim. I then traced the claim back to it’s origin in a 1996 UNICEF report which actually made a quite different claim. Finally I uncovered the real ICRC figures, which confirmed what I said: It is overwhelminly men who are killed and injured in war.

    I haven’t been rude to Morgaine. I merely pointed out that her information was incorrect. Nevertheless, she has not approved any further posts from me on her blog. Neither has she retracted the claim, nor has she responded to my request to withdraw the allegation that I am a liar. She has, however, worked very hard to spread this false information all over the net.

    This is denial, and, as I observed above, when what is denied rises to the level of a holocaust, it is holocaust denial.

    Comment by Daran — October 15, 2006 @ 6:54 am | Reply

  7. Daran;

    Perhaps I cant be too helpful then; the only feminist blogs (or really blogs at all) that I read regularly are Alas, Twisty and Bitch PHD. All but Alas are drastically short on Iraq news analysis. I do have to say that this flare up (and Alas before that) has really turned me on to some great feminist blogs that’ll probably add to my internet procrastination list.

    I can tell you why I think you’re wrong about feminism and analysis of men’s oppression, even if I cant pass your oddly narrow test. I based my original comment on my experience with feminist thought and action, which I think is actually more representative in some ways than the feminist blogosphere. (I think it is fair to look at published feminist thinkers when talking about feminist thought, and necessary to look at what feminist do when discussing feminist action.

    My experience comes from two places:

    1)feminist thought as it exists in university departments of Gender Studies, History and Social Sciences (areas I would say that feminist theory is usually fairly robust)

    2)feminist, anti-racist and labor movement organizing.

    I would say that in both of those contexts–particularly when feminists see gender oppression as part of a wider matrix of oppression–feminists do take seriously the ways in which gender oppression injure men. In my own case, most of the organizing I’ve participated in the last year was to take on an oppression faced mostly by men which I believe is significantly rooted in gender oppression. More on that down post.

    First: Feminists concerned with men’s gendered oppression in academia and the popular nonfiction press:

    http://www.amazon.com/Hearts-Men-American-Dreams-Commitment/dp/0385176155/ref=sid_av_dp/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8

    http://www.amazon.com/Stiffed-Betrayal-American-Susan-Faludi/dp/book-citations/B000H2M9Y6/ref=sid_av_av/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&citingPage=5&citeType=citing&numCitations=20&citedPage=1#citing

    http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Boys-Schools-Masculinity-Violence/dp/0472088491/sr=1-4/qid=1160924509/ref=sr_1_4/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.com/Masculinity-Studies-Feminist-Theory-Gardiner/dp/0231122799/sr=1-11/qid=1160924509/ref=sr_1_11/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.com/Masculinity-Studies-Reader-Works-Cultural/dp/0631226605/sr=1-18/qid=1160924552/ref=sr_1_18/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.com/Wimp-Factor-Politics-Anxious-Masculinity/dp/0807043451/sr=1-39/qid=1160924619/ref=sr_1_39/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Sons-Feminism-Masculinity-Struggle/dp/0415924901/sr=1-63/qid=1160925043/ref=sr_1_63/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Anyway—there are dozens of books like this by feminists. I haven’t read all of them to know if there analysis is good, or if it is one I share; the point of this list is that one quick search of Amazon turned up a lot of material representing feminists writing about the gendered problems men face. That’s my “garden test.”

    One small side point—why do you doubt if “Gender Studies” has a different content than “Women’s Studies” when you admit that you don’t know? I do know, and it has. I can send you a short essay about analyzing that shift if you’re interested. I feel that so far you and I have been able to have pleasant online interactions and take each other fairly seriously, but that was strangely dismissive.

    Anyway, away from examples of what feminists think to what feminists do and the war:

    I agree with you that war is a gendered oppression that men face—its inarguable historically, and I think you are probably correct on this Iraq business, but I haven’t looked into it, so I don’t know for sure. Certainly its true that (working-class) men have historically been expected to be soldiers while women have not, and so have tended to die in combat more, outside of the use of carpet bombs, napalm, nuclear weapons, landmines and other warfare technologies of mass destruction, when it may be more difficult to say.

    Good then, that in this war, feminists are organizing to stop it, both in feminist organizations and outside of them; I bet (with no solid proof, admittedly,) that we’re doing more of that than MRA types are:

    http://www.codepinkalert.org/index.php
    http://cindysheehan.info/
    http://www.now.org/press/10-02/10-10.html

    Of course, some feminists have bought into Bush’s brand of Imperialist feminism which sees the US military as a potential tool for ending oppression in Muslim societies. This makes me physically ill, and I think it illustrates the political an intellectual dangers of any feminism divorced from any broader theory of oppression which analyzes class society, racism and imperialism, and indeed any feminism which ignores the gendered ways men are oppressed.

    One feminist writer has analyzed the history of this development in feminism and has a forthcoming book, which I look forward to, and would recommend based on her previous work:

    http://soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/eisen/index.html

    Of course, its not just the war where PHMT—it also happens in other, less sporadic ways. My hobby horse for this is the gender segregation of work and safety. Its something I’ve spent time agitating around, so it’s a further example of what feminists do.. (I’m glad you brought this issue up in your comment upthread—that helps get me where I’m going).

    Obviously gender segregation of work hurts women seriously, in that we don’t get paid as much as the guys do, a fact which has wide ranging and deeply gendered negative impacts on women. There is even some evidence that once women enter a job category it works something like “block busting” did for housing integration and race—men leave, and the work suddenly looses market value. Perhaps not in that order.

    But gender segregation also hurts men in a different way; I argue that it makes “men’s work” less safe than it otherwise would be.

    http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecinq/v4y2006i2p123-152.html

    Men die and are injured at work more than women do—workplace injury is a major cause of death for young men.

    Partly that’s because women are kept out of and discouraged from working in high-paid jobs which also happen to be high-risk, like truck-driving and construction. Partly its because the guys who do those jobs are less willing to demand safe work environments or to refuse unsafe work because doing so makes them look like p*ssies. Macho work cultures tend to be unsafe work cultures—for men.

    Of course the few women that do work there face the same safety problems plus discrimination, harassment and sometimes violence from bosses and coworkers.

    My point being that gender segregation of work is a feminist issue, and is also, in some important ways a problem for men (it also benefits them, as you point out).

    I think these two examples of how gendered oppression hurts men—yours of the Iraq war, and mine of job segregation—are good ones for demonstrating the ways in which we’d all be better off if feminism had its way, and men got let off the macho hook. Wars would be harder to execute, work would be safer and fairly distributed. There are others—women and men would have better relationships among themselves and with each other, children would have better parents, schools would be more able to educate students, etc, etc.

    What I don’t believe, and I’m not sure whether you do or not, is that men are MORE oppressed by gender than women. If that is your underlying argument war and work don’t get you there.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 11:54 am | Reply

  8. I posted a very long comment. It maybe in moderation?

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 11:56 am | Reply

  9. I posted a very long comment. It maybe in moderation?

    Yes it was; thanks for the heads up. Reading now.

    Comment by Daran — October 15, 2006 @ 12:06 pm | Reply

  10. also just on a small point:

    Is curiousgyrl aware of it? If not, why not? If so, how did she become aware of it? Not through feminism, or a “gender studies” class, I’ll bet.

    As I mentiond, I wasnt aware of that most civilians dying in Iraq were men. And I didnt learn about that in a Gender Studies class for the simple reason that I haven’t taken any since the invasion of the Iraq war until now. However, last time I did take one, we discussed war in general and the obvious point that most soldiers who’ve been killed in war throughout history have been men, and discussed the myriad of ways gender played out during the Vietnam War period. Incidentally, i would say that female and feminist organizing against the draft during that period is an example of feminists fighting an oppressive policy that affects men.

    Because men are seen as the default human, however, such issues are generally not talked about as an oppressive impact of masculinity, but simply as human rights or civil rights issues.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

  11. Prison, of course, is another good example of something that happens disproportionately to men along with all that comes with it; false imprisonment, torture, etc.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  12. curiousgyrl:

    As I mentiond, I wasnt aware of that most civilians dying in Iraq were men. And I didnt learn about that in a Gender Studies class for the simple reason that I haven’t taken any since the invasion of the Iraq war until now.

    The Iraq war isn’t really atypical. The “kill all the men and rape the women” motif is suppressed to a degree when the military of western liberal democracies are involved, but as you probably realise, neither motif is suppressed entirely, and of course, the opposing forces are not so constrained.

    However, last time I did take one, we discussed war in general and the obvious point that most soldiers who’ve been killed in war throughout history have been men,…

    As you say, that’s an obvious point. Did they tell you that most civilians who have been killed in war throughout history have been male? Did they tell you that frequently the conquering side makes a determined attempt to kill the entire adult male population of the conquered people, sometimes sparing the very old, sometimes not even that?

    Did they tell you that when Srebrenica fell in 1995, almost the entire adult male population was massacred? That estimates for the death toll range from seven to ten thousand? There were mass rapes and murders of women and children, but no systematic attempt to rape or murder all of them. (It was of course, sheer hell for everyone regardless of whether they were specifically targetted for atrocity).

    Did they tell you that the pattern of male extermination described above was established in the Yugoslav wars as early as 1991, for example, in the fall of Vucovar? Did they tell you the UN attempted to evacuate Srebrenica in 1993? Did they tell you that adult men below the age of 60 were explicitly excluded from that evacuation? Do you know the reasons for this?

    Did you know that the UNHCR prioritises “Women and Children”, along with the sick and injured, and the elderly. Who does that leave unprioritised? Why do you think this is?

    Do you know any feminists who have addressed these specific questions? I won’t restrict you to the blogosphere, but I do want to remain focused on these questions. If the sexes were reversed, and women were being specifically excluded from evacuation from situations in which they were the most vulnerable, do you think feminists would be as silent on the subject?

    Now that I have made you aware of these facts, will you campaign for men to be given priority over women in future evacuations under similar circumstances? What do you think my odds are of persuading other feminists to campaign for this?

    …and discussed the myriad of ways gender played out during the Vietnam War period.

    I’m not particularly familiar with the Vietnam War, but as it was fought by a liberal democracy, I would imagine that the pattern was similar to Iraq, with the “kill all the men and rape the women” motif suppressed to a degree, obviously not completely as My Lai and similar atrocities demonstrated.

    Incidentally, i would say that female and feminist organizing against the draft during that period is an example of feminists fighting an oppressive policy that affects men.

    I’m aware of that.

    Because men are seen as the default human, however, such issues are generally not talked about as an oppressive impact of masculinity, but simply as human rights or civil rights issues.

    Feminists of course do talk about these issues as being “an oppressive impact of masculinity”, that is to say, that they blame men for it, which in the context of male victimisation means blaming the victim. However I don’t accept the “default human” argument. When you evacuate a burning building, you rescue the humans first, and leave the objects behind. So who got evacuated when Srebrenica was burning? Who got left behind?

    Comment by Daran — October 15, 2006 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

  13. Daran;

    I haven’t read these books, but they seem to be about the way in which contruction of oppressive masuclinites have manipulated men in the twentieth century into accepting war, fighting in war and dying in war:

    http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Our-Sons-Renegotiation-Citizenship/dp/1403967105/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8
    http://www.amazon.com/Masculinities-Politics-War-Gendering-History/dp/0719065216/sr=8-19/qid=1160952145/ref=sr_1_19/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books
    http://www.amazon.com/Wimp-Factor-Politics-Anxious-Masculinity/dp/0807043443/sr=8-8/qid=1160952001/ref=sr_1_8/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books
    http://www.amazon.com/Manipulating-Masculinity-British-American-Literature/dp/1403971951/sr=8-7/qid=1160952001/ref=sr_1_7/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    I have read this book which does a good job of talking about race, class and gender in the USmilitary:
    http://www.amazon.com/Homefront-Military-American-Twentieth-Century/dp/0807055093/sr=1-1/qid=1160955549/ref=sr_1_1/104-6479492-7259959?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Stan Goff, I’m sure, would call himself a feminist or a pro-feminst, but he mostly writes about men, masculinity, the military, war,class and race:

    http://home.igc.org/~sherrynstan/

    As for civilian deaths, I accept your point to a degree, but I think you misunderstand the idea behind feminists pointing the specific impacts war has on women–I think its mostly a way of redressing the default, male gender of a term like ‘civilian.’ I think in this case its clearly led to misaprehension of the facts (at least on my own part) and a resultingly shallow analysis.

    But I don think it demonstrates that feminists don’t care about what happens to men, and even less any notion that women oppress men. Which you haven’t stated explicitly, of course, but which seems to be your intellectual destination/point of origin.

    Moving on;

    Feminists of course do talk about these issues as being “an oppressive impact of masculinity”, that is to say, that they blame men for it, which in the context of male victimisation means blaming the victim. However I don’t accept the “default human” argument. When you evacuate a burning building, you rescue the humans first, and leave the objects behind. So who got evacuated when Srebrenica was burning? Who got left behind?

    Ruling class men oppress all other men–as men–(and to a different degree and in a different fashion, non-ruling class women) via warfare. A small group of old men oppress a larger group of young men. I’m not blaminig the victim–I’m talking about different men!

    Like rape, war in recorded history is a crime that IMPACTS both men and women, but is perpetrated only rarely by women.(Note I dont believe that is becuase of inherent differences between men and women, but the result of an oppressive social structure t hat we can change)

    Mascuilinity is coercive ideology that gets us to go along with stuff like war. Prison, when there’s a draft or high unemployment today are the brute force that back it up and make war and masculinity seem like appealing options.

    As for chivalry– women and children first–its a case of women being viewed as weak, dependent and child-like as opposed to the default, competent, man. Women are ‘innocent’ becuase it is unimaginable to see them as fighters. (this was less true in vietnam, beuause the communists had a lot of female guerilla)

    Of course in war-time, or in sinking-ship-time, that’s a bad deal for the men involved. I’m against it. But its not a bad deal for men which is largely created and maintained by women. And its one which, while bad for the men on the boat or in the war, helps keep the rest of the gender system upright and afloat.

    As for a campaign,I would support an effort to make relief nongender-based–I probably wouldnt organize it, but I’d write a letter or something. I dont think its a great idea as politics even in your terms, becuase I think the biggest impact on men’s lives would be ending the war and ending wars in general.

    Feminists have a much stronger track record here than men’s rights advocates. Feminists are doing that work right now. Wheres the MRA anti-war campaign?

    here’s a short and non-comprehensive list of feminist orgs trying to talk (mostly) young men out of letting themselves be killed and kiling for no reason:
    http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=48
    http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=16
    http://vitw.org/cr/
    http://www.womeninblack.net/

    And finally, even if I drew outside your lines,I think I have successfully demonstrated that feminsts are intellectually and organizationally concerned about men. I doubt that the converse can be demonstrated to be true of MRA’s.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 7:58 pm | Reply

  14. I’m in moderation limbo again

    Comment by curiougyrl — October 15, 2006 @ 10:29 pm | Reply

  15. When people are talking about men being preferentially killed in wars, they are missing the point: wars are SUPPOSED to kill the men. That’s what they are FOR. Read Matt Ridley’s books and you’ll understand. BTW, I am taking a nursing course, with Master’s prepared nurses, who were all saying stuff like ‘If men got breast cancer at the rate women did, we’d have a cure by now.’ That’s not a direct quote, just the gist. A little bit of quick research shows that according to the American Cancer society, in 2003, 28,900 men died of prostate cancer and 39,800 women died of breast cancer, so prostate cancer kills roughly three men for each four women who die of breast cancer (American Cancer Society, 2003). On the other hand, the amounts of money spent on breast cancer research and treatment are far greater than those spent on prostate cancer. According to a recent report, 560.1 Billion was spend on Beast cancer research in 2005, and comparable amounts in the previous four years. In contrast 309 Million was spent on prostate cancer research, and that represents a significant increase over the past few years (National Cancer Institute, 2005). The disparity between the two is even greater when you consider treatment costs, where breast cancer recieves between two and four times as much money as prostate cancer. Ask yourselves, when was the last time you say or even heard of a prostate cancer walk or telethon? Many states do not have a law mandating insurance companies to cover prostate cancer screenings, forcing men to pay out of pocket. How many governors would remain in office if the same could be said of breast cancer exams? In my state breast cancer scrfeening vans go around all the time offering free tests. In reality, men’s cancers are ignored, undertreated and under-researched.

    American Cancer Society. (2003). Cancer Facts & Figures-2003 (Cancer Facts, pp. 11-14) [Electronic version]. Washington, DC, USA: American Cancer Society. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from the American Cancer Society Web site: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2003BrFPWSecured.pdf

    National Cancer Institute (2005). 2005 Fact Book. (Fact Book, 2005) [Electronic version]. Washington, DC, USA: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from the National Cancer Institute Web site: http://fmb.cancer.gov/financial/attachments/FY-2005-FACT-BOOK-FINAL.pdf

    Comment by Ben — October 15, 2006 @ 11:56 pm | Reply

  16. Sorry error in my earlier post. Both cancers recieve millions of dollars, NOT Billions

    Comment by Ben — October 16, 2006 @ 12:10 am | Reply

  17. Ben said:
    When people are talking about men being preferentially killed in wars, they are missing the point: wars are SUPPOSED to kill the men. That’s what they are FOR. Read Matt Ridley’s books and you’ll understand.

    Of course wars are supposed to killed men. War developed out of sexual selection pressures for male-male competition. Chimpanzees, for example, have male coalitional warfare. Yet the point you are missing is that men dying through war (either as soldiers or as civilians) is mass murder, and a form of gender oppression. Ridley and other evolutionary psychologists are making descriptive, causal arguments on how behaviors like warfare evolved. What Daran is making is a moral (i.e. prescriptive) argument. The fact that war and mass extermination of enemy males is in some way “natural” doesn’t make it in any way morally justified nor inevitable (however, for male-male competition to calm down, the sexual pressures that females are exerting on men will have to change; for males to change their behavior, females will have to change what behaviors they are encouraging in males).

    On the issue of breast cancer and prostate cancer, I agree with you that the double standard for where society’s attention gets aimed is obscene.

    Comment by Aegis — October 16, 2006 @ 1:18 am | Reply

  18. Of course wars are supposed to killed men. War developed out of sexual selection pressures for male-male competition. Chimpanzees, for example, have male coalitional warfare. Yet the point you are missing is that men dying through war (either as soldiers or as civilians) is mass murder, and a form of gender oppression. Ridley and other evolutionary psychologists are making descriptive, causal arguments on how behaviors like warfare evolved.

    The problem with this kind of analysis is that it misunderstands its own theoretical framework. Evolution is not a teleological theory. It simply makes no sense to talk about “what wars are supposed to do”, in an evolutionary framing, only about what they do do.

    Nor do I agree that war arose out of sexual selection pressures. Wars tend to be fought for resources, of which there are many different kinds. Women are a resource potentially worth fighting for, but I suspect that in the majority of conflicts, they were a bonus reward for the victor, rather than a main goal of the conflict.

    I think it is important to look at warfare through economic and evolutionary framings, in order better to understand the phenomenon. However, as you correctly point out, I am much more interested in moral framings, not least because I don’t have to write such things as “women are a resource” and “they were a bonus reward for the victor” both of which frankly turn my stomach.

    I’m not convinced that Prostate vs. Breast cancer funding represents a bona fide example of discrimination against men. Raw numbers killed may not be the best metric here, how about years of life lost? I recall Barry writing about this over at Alas.

    It does, however, refute what I call the Steinem fallacy – if X happened to men, they would have done something about it by now.

    However this appears to be a topic hijack. As far as I can see, nobody has made the Steinem fallacy in this thread.

    Comment by Daran — October 16, 2006 @ 2:37 am | Reply

  19. Daran said:
    The problem with this kind of analysis is that it misunderstands its own theoretical framework. Evolution is not a teleological theory. It simply makes no sense to talk about “what wars are supposed to do”, in an evolutionary framing, only about what they do do.

    Correct. When I said that “wars are supposed to kill men,” I meant that one of the human motives behind war is to kill men (usually to take their resources, or out of ethnic hatred, etc…). I did not intend to imply that the human tendency towards warfare evolved in order to kill men, which would indeed be a teleological framing.

    Nor do I agree that war arose out of sexual selection pressures. Wars tend to be fought for resources, of which there are many different kinds.

    The two types of sexual selection are intersexual choice, and intrasexual competition. It is male-male competition that caused the evolution of greater average male body size, strength, and aggression. Greater male strength and aggression are what make male coalitional warfare possible. There are many species that do not have heavy male-male competition and do have competition over resources, but these species do not engage in warfare like chimps and humans do (as far as I know). Apparently, the kind of sexual pressures that chimps and humans are under form a necessary, if not sufficient, basis for warfare.

    Also, you must consider why males are fighting for resources. What use are resources to males? Well, resources are useful for attaining social status, and both resources and status are useful for attracting females and being able to support their children. This motivation is not necessarily conscious.

    Women are a resource potentially worth fighting for, but I suspect that in the majority of conflicts, they were a bonus reward for the victor, rather than a main goal of the conflict.

    It depends which types of conflicts you are talking about. If you are talking about hunter-gatherers like the Yanomamo, taking neighboring tribes’ women is indeed part of their motivation. In modern conflicts, this is less likely, yet the human brain is adapted to the Stone Age, not to large modern societies and nations.

    Comment by Aegis — October 16, 2006 @ 3:07 am | Reply

  20. I’m afraid of the answer to this question, but this evolutionary biology claptrap applies to the wars of the 20th century? Like Russia and Britian during WWII must have really been under heavy sexual selection pressures while Germany was under heavy Jewish-selection pressure…wait,no, that cant be it…

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 16, 2006 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  21. I’m afraid of the answer to this question, but this evolutionary biology claptrap applies to the wars of the 20th century?

    Some evolutionary biology, certainly.

    I might note that very much of the war propaganda (especially on defensive wars, or simply wars that are perceived as defensive against some real [Germany attacking the UK in WW2] or manufactured [Jews destroying Germany from “inside”]) is based on sociobiological desire to maintain one’s race as extended family* (and thus part of one’s genes) against outside threats. “They will rape (and impregnate) our women” is very common motif in war propaganda and inspires men to fight wars.

    I think invidualistic intrasex competition is in itself insufficient (that’s a lot of “i”‘s) to explain warfare, family/race/society competition factors more heavily.

    Such dynamics are present in non-warfare, non-rape situations: A major reason for Jim Crow laws was the fear of white men about black men having sex with white women.

    * Not going into debate about the scientific validity of that, but it is ultimately irrelevant to the argument whether race is socially constructed or biological. The perception “us” vs. “them” is the point.

    Comment by Tuomas — October 16, 2006 @ 9:48 am | Reply

  22. One point about war is also that requires great amount of intersex cooperation, and excess aggression has been a negative trait ever since the ancient, in competition more disciplined, less aggressive, “civilized” (agricultural, technology…) tribes tend to triumph over “barbarians”.

    Not to say that they necessarily wage war in different manner (not at all), but have better resources to do it.

    Comment by Tuomas — October 16, 2006 @ 10:00 am | Reply

  23. mishing together “socio” with “biological” lets you argue that racism, rape, war (on the scale of WW’s I and II!) is explained by hardwiring, while technically not to ignore “social” (political and economic) factors. obviously humans are the products of evolution, but I think your formulation largely ignores the most significant causal factors. not surprisingly, i suppose, that I think that.🙂

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 16, 2006 @ 10:02 am | Reply

  24. mishing together “socio” with “biological” lets you argue that racism, rape, war (on the scale of WW’s I and II!) is explained by hardwiring, while technically not to ignore “social” (political and economic) factors. obviously humans are the products of evolution, but I think your formulation largely ignores the most significant causal factors. not surprisingly, i suppose, that I think that.🙂

    Did social and economic factors come from outer space, or from some Greater Being, or are they too explained by humans social tendencies (which are ultimately biological)?

    Other factors vs. biology is a false dilemma.

    Comment by Tuomas — October 16, 2006 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  25. curiousgyrl:

    I didn’t want to write a frigging book. Besides, the aforementioned Matt Ridley is much better at that. I recommend “The Origins Of Virtue” (you might be pleasantly surprised).

    “Hardwired” is largely a strawman, BTW, I wasn’t excusing anything nor did I claim that humans are not capable of being better.

    Comment by Tuomas — October 16, 2006 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  26. I’m in moderation limbo again

    I assume you’re referring to post 13, which I quote from below. It was visible when I got back, and the spampit was empty, so I guess someone got to it before I did. If you were referring to a different post, it didn’t make it.

    I’m not ignoring the many books you’ve cited, but I will have to reseach them before I comment, and I would like to reach the other things you’ve raised first:

    Stan Goff, I’m sure, would call himself a feminist or a pro-feminst, but he mostly writes about men, masculinity, the military, war,class and race:

    I’m not particularly concerned about whether a person self-identifies as feminist or not. It is their discoursive posture toward these issues that is pertinant.

    As for civilian deaths, I accept your point to a degree, but I think you misunderstand the idea behind feminists pointing the specific impacts war has on women–I think its mostly a way of redressing the default, male gender of a term like ‘civilian.’

    I disagree that ‘civilian’ has default male gender. The default civilian is a womanandchildren, or occasionally an oldmenwomenandchildren. It is men who are most likely to be denied ‘civilian immunity’ in war, and most likely to be ignored when this happens. Womenandchildren are most likely, when victimised by war, to attract media attention.

    I think in this case its clearly led to misaprehension of the facts (at least on my own part) and a resultingly shallow analysis.

    Thank you for acknowledging that. If there were more feminists like you, and fewer like Morgaine then I’d have a lot less to criticise about the movement. However, it’s not just you who have “misapprehended the facts”, and it’s not just “in this case”.

    But I don think it demonstrates that feminists don’t care about what happens to men, and even less any notion that women oppress men. Which you haven’t stated explicitly, of course, but which seems to be your intellectual destination/point of origin.

    You are in error. I regard neither “women” nor “men” to be collectives. (The idea that they are, I call the “Dworkin fallacy”) consequently neither can engage in any collective action, such as oppressing the other.

    Individually there are many acts of intergender oppression that take place in both direction, and many acts of intragender oppression on both sides.

    I do, however, find feminism to be an oppressive culture, though I’m happy to acknowledge exceptions: Bitch PHD, for example, now that I’ve had a look at her website. (It’s also worth pointing out that many feminists are feeling oppressed by their own culture, as the fallout from Alasgate has shown.)

    Ruling class men oppress all other men–as men–(and to a different degree and in a different fashion, non-ruling class women) via warfare. A small group of old men oppress a larger group of young men. I’m not blaminig the victim–I’m talking about different men!

    I have no problem with that framing for the issue whatsoever. But let’s compare it with what you said before:

    such issues are generally not talked about as an oppressive impact of masculinity, but simply as human rights or civil rights issues.

    There’s no distinction drawn there between the masculinity of the oppressors and the masculinity of the oppressed.

    Like rape, war in recorded history is a crime that IMPACTS both men and women, but is perpetrated only rarely by women.(Note I dont believe that is becuase of inherent differences between men and women, but the result of an oppressive social structure t hat we can change)

    The problem with this framing is that both war and rape are perpetrated only rarely by men. Most men are not rapists. Most men are not combattents even at time of war (See, for example, Mueller, John. 2000. The Banality of Ethnic War. International Security 25 (1):42-70) Even when men are combatants it often because they’re forced to be.

    Mascuilinity is coercive ideology that gets us to go along with stuff like war. Prison, when there’s a draft or high unemployment today are the brute force that back it up and make war and masculinity seem like appealing options.

    Masculinity is not an ideology. Masculinity is the aggregate of socially constructed attributes regarded as male. There are ideologies of masculinity, of course.

    As for chivalry– women and children first–its a case of women being viewed as weak, dependent and child-like as opposed to the default, competent, man. Women are ‘innocent’ becuase it is unimaginable to see them as fighters. (this was less true in vietnam, beuause the communists had a lot of female guerilla)

    There were a lot of female combatants in the former Yugoslavia, and were and are a lot in Iraq, although you don’t tend to hear about that. Unquestionably the large majority of combattents are male, but as I pointed out before, the majority of men are not combatants.

    Women are viewed as weak, dependent, innocent, and worthy. They are child-like in so far as children are also viewed as having these characteristics. Men are viewed as strong, self-sufficient, complicit, and unworthy. Of these four axes (and I’m sure others could be identified), only the worthy/unworthy axis is a pure value judgement – one which is prejudicial against men. The other three axes have empirical content. They are prejudicial in so far as there is a disconnect between the stereotype and reality.

    Members of both sexes are typically not complicit, as I pointed out above, or if complicit, then forced into complicity, so this axis is also prejudicial against men. Strength is a relative term. You may be strong enough to deal with some problems, but too weak to deal with others. In a war context, both situations can exist (often simultaneously), so this stereotype can be prejudicial against both sexes. In an atrocity situation, both sexes are weak to the point of helplessness, so again it is men who are prejudicially regarded as something which they are not.

    Dependency is the most complex aspect to analyse, because it is not a one-dimensional axis. In fact, there are three opposing corners – dependence, independence and interdependence. Normally both sexes are interdependent at both an individual and at a gender-group level, so this stereotype is prejudicial to both sexes, but when everyone has been reduced to dependency, such as in an atrocity situation, it is again men who are prejudiced by being treated as something other than what they are.

    I do not agree that men are the “default”. This appears to be an attempt to hammer a square factual peg into a round theoretical hole. The theory is that any and all gendered norms must privilege males over females. The misfitting fact here is that male victimisation in war is typically ignored.

    Of course in war-time, or in sinking-ship-time, that’s a bad deal for the men involved.

    It’s a bad deal for the women involved too.

    I’m against it.

    I’m unimpressed. NOW is opposed to draft and draft registration. They’ve said so. Twice. In the past forty years.

    I’m sorry, this isn’t intended to be beating up on you. It’s just that feminists say that they’re “for” and “against” many of the things I’m “for” and “against”. But it’s purely theoretical. They don’t campaign or show any particular interest in opposing it.

    But its not a bad deal for men which is largely created and maintained by women.

    With the implication that it’s been largely created and maintained by men? That looks like victim-blaming to me, but feel free to justify your claim.

    And its one which, while bad for the men on the boat or in the war, helps keep the rest of the gender system upright and afloat.

    That’s another remarkable claim that I think you should justify.

    As for a campaign,I would support an effort to make relief nongender-based–I probably wouldnt organize it, but I’d write a letter or something.

    Now I am impressed. Seriously, no irony. Be careful how you word your letter. It’s already policy not to discriminate on the basis of sex. It’s just that as a matter of practice, this is interpretted as not discriminating against women. Also there are some circumstances not applicable to men, in which women are rightly to be given priority. The usual formulation is “pregnant and lactating women” It’s not clear to me that a women in early pregnancy should be regarded as particularly vulnerable, nor that lactation per se makes a woman vulnerable, but certainly nursing mothers in so far as they are the child’s best (if not only) life support should benefit from any priority given to the child.

    BUT

    It’s already policy not to split families, if possible. That policy is not always applied to male members. IT SHOULD BE.

    I dont think its a great idea as politics even in your terms, becuase I think the biggest impact on men’s lives would be ending the war and ending wars in general.

    I agree that it would be bad politics for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that evacuations of this nature are rare. Typical refugee crises are much messier, with women, children, old men and maybe some younger men if they make it, struggling out of the war zone (or being forcibly evicted), and the UNHCR struggling to make provision on a crisis-management basis.

    I do have some ideas about what would make a good focus for a letter writing campaign, but this post is already going to be enormous. And I don’t think we’re at the “letter writing stage”, or even at the “organising a campaign” stage. We’re at the Barry Manilow stage.

    I also agree that we should focus our efforts at ending this war and all wars. As far as this war is concerned, the US government must be the primary campaigning target, though as a British citizen, I have to lobby my own government as well (while we still have them. Let’s get rid of them!)

    As for all wars, well, I’m not holding my breath. But we need to change the culture that regards men as dispensable disposable cannon-fodder. When bad things happen to men, we need to start saying “This is happening to men, and that’s bad”. It’s not enough to say “This is happening, and bad things are happening to women because of it”. That’s also important, and we need to campaign on both fronts.

    Feminists have a much stronger track record here than men’s rights advocates. Feminists are doing that work right now. Wheres the MRA anti-war campaign?

    Feminists saying “hey, we’re not as bad as MRAs” is a bit like warhawks saying “hey, we’re not as bad as Saddam”.

    (Except that in the case of feminists its actually true.)

    here’s a short and non-comprehensive list of feminist orgs trying to talk (mostly) young men out of letting themselves be killed and kiling for no reason:

    That’s exactly it. That’s how the issue should be framed. Now let’s look at how these actually do frame it.

    http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=48

    “The military is desperate for young people to fight in Iraq and they are doing everything they can to pull in young people: promising them a college education, big cash bonuses, and trying to guarantee that new enlistees won’t get sent to the Middle East. Recruiters roam the halls of high schools luring students into conversation with free goods, rock climbing walls, war simulation video games, and, worst of all, fancy Hummers.”

    My emphasis. Dr. Adam Jones, founder of Gendercide Watch uses (I believe coined) some terminology to describe how male oppression is eliminated from both mainstream and feminist discourse. “Displacement” is where gender-neutral terms are used to downplay or conceal the highly gendered nature of a process – usually one which victimises men. Contrast with “obnoxious gendering”, a term I just coined to describe the reverse process by which the gendered nature of a process is rammed down the reader’s throat. “It’s male violence against women. Done by men. Who are male. In case you didn’t get that, I’ll say it again. We need to stamp out violence against women. That’s male violence…” etc., etc., etc., Ad nausium.

    Obnoxious gendering is feminist device which is increasingly entering into mainstream discourse. It is still sufficiently distinct, though, to act as a cultural marker for feminism.

    It is the ubiquity of these and other devices that resulted in your “misapprehension”, and which make such falsehoods as “women and children are 80% of war casualties” so plausible, indeed, so obviously true that they can circle the world without anyone questioning them.

    Here’s another page from the same site:

    http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=131

    Note how – in contrast to their recruitment page – when they consider victimisation in Iraq, they suddenly become interested in gender. But only one gender. This illustrated another of the techniques identified by Jones – “exclusion”, or in the vocabulary I use in the title of this post, they ignore male victimisation. (Don’t tell me that male victims are the default. Male victims are nowhere to be seen here.)

    http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=16

    This is not discernably a feminist website.

    http://vitw.org/cr/

    Neither is that. It’s a terrific website, though. Shame it isn’t being maintained.

    http://www.womeninblack.net/

    Here we have the image of the woman in black, not just as protester, but also as victim in the form of bound, naked, tortured figures.

    “Our silence is visible. We invite women to stand with us, reflect about themselves and women who have been raped, tortured or killed in concentration camps, women who have disappeared, whose loved ones have disappeared or have been killed, whose homes have been demolished. We wear black as a symbol of sorrow for all victims of war, for the destruction of people, nature and the fabric of life.”

    Do men feature in there at all? Maybe they’re included at the end, as an afterthought. It’s hard to say really. Otherwise they might count as “loved ones” who gain value through the love of a women, but have otherwise no intrinsic value.

    I guess now, or should I say NOW would be a good time to address this:

    http://www.now.org/press/10-02/10-10.html

    “We know that women would be disproportionately affected if Congress gives Bush a blank check to invade Iraq with a unilateral, preemptive strike. As has happened during previous wars, funds will be diverted from education, health, welfare and other vitally needed social programs from an already downsized budget. Women will bear the greatest burden of any decrease in domestic spending in order to finance war.

    For Iraqi women, the war carries the danger that their nation will degenerate into an even more militarized society. We know all too well how such an extreme militarized culture in Afghanistan gave rise to a life of violence and oppression for women there. A U.S. invasion of Iraq will likely entail similar dangers to the safety and rights of Iraqi women-who currently enjoy more rights and freedoms than women in other Gulf nations, such as Saudi Arabia.”

    Leaving aside the question how they “know that women would be disproportionately affected”, are there any people other than American and Iraqi women who are being adversely affected by the war?

    And finally, even if I drew outside your lines,I think I have successfully demonstrated that feminsts are intellectually and organizationally concerned about men.

    With respect, I disagree. You’ve successfully demonstrated that feminists are intellectually and organizationally opposed to the war, which was never in question. Of the three discernably feminist organisations you’ve cited, none appears to have shown any concern for men qua men. And none has shown any interest in challenging the culture of male disposability that makes recruitment possible. The one that does – Voices in the Wilderness – albeit in a very understated way, is not discernably feminist.

    Hats off to you, though, for recognising – without any prompting from me – just what a gender-oppressive institution “voluntary” military recruitment is. I have enough difficulty in persuading most feminists that compulsory registration and conscription is gender-oppressive, so wedded are they to the idea that every gendered norm is a male privilege.

    I doubt that the converse can be demonstrated to be true of MRA’s.

    To hell with the MRAs. They’re irrelevant.

    Comment by Daran — October 16, 2006 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  27. I assume you’re referring to post 13, which I quote from below. It was visible when I got back, and the spampit was empty, so I guess someone got to it before I did.

    Probably it was 13, it got caught in the spam filter (restored now). Lot of links tends to throw comments in there.

    It’s really annoying sometimes, ’cause the post seems just to disappear.

    Comment by Tuomas — October 16, 2006 @ 11:06 am | Reply

  28. It’s really annoying sometimes, ’cause the post seems just to disappear.

    Better than the alternative.

    Comment by Daran — October 16, 2006 @ 11:34 am | Reply

  29. Daran;

    Thanks for that. I’m not ignoring you if I dont get back to this, but I do have to stop procrastinating and start doing RL wok.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — October 16, 2006 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  30. […] In this post, the illustrative example features female victims of a female perp. That latter might have been worth highlighting, given that the perps of this kind of exploitation are normatively male. (Contrast such an approach with the obnoxious gendering typically used by feminists to reinforce the normative role of males-as-perps.) However Marcella chooses to make a more general political point. […]

    Pingback by Anatomy of a Feminist « Creative Destruction — October 29, 2006 @ 6:09 pm | Reply

  31. […] Media whitewashing of harms to men isn’t restricted to Iraq, and it isn’t restricted to war. It applies across the board of feminist discourse which “looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression through a telescope. Backwards….” […]

    Pingback by Feminist Critics — February 17, 2007 @ 3:49 am | Reply

  32. […] teaches that violence committed against men is unimportant or nonexistent. Daran, writing from Creative Destruction, writes that feminism. “looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression […]

    Pingback by Distorting Domestic Violence Figures: How Mens Rights Activists Misunderstand Feminism — February 28, 2007 @ 2:07 am | Reply

  33. […] to counteract this by focussing on men rather than women and death rather than rape, all without denying, dismissing, minimising or ignoring the harms to […]

    Pingback by Feminist Critics — January 12, 2008 @ 3:17 am | Reply

  34. in all history of mankind men as always suffer more than women no doubt the lies of the media and society is amazing and amoral

    Comment by nelson — March 8, 2008 @ 9:41 pm | Reply

  35. Attempts at destroying my life should not be ignored. Becoming a hunk of waste, with the mind to go first, is also not in my best interest either. Nor would it be in the best interest of those forces entrusted with my protection if they wanted me allied with them.

    I do not want any of the people in my life as major parts of my life if they continuously allow me to be subjugated by people who care more about their egos then my physical security.

    Life should be precious. Something I do not want to waste away. Comments I made in the past were never followed by attempts to completely subjugate individuals, yet maggot minded individuals use physical threats to deal with scrutiny.

    If you are not one of the hostile regimes that denies, dismissises, and minimises, its threat to the peace of mind of those who should not be under the complete subjugation of such people then perhaps you would like to assist The Human Development Project in creating spots throughout the globe where supply networks, media networks, property networks, etc., are created to ensure that our lives are not under the control of people whose sole function is our destruction. It is an insult to be under the jurisdiction of such people.

    Comment by Keith Balzer — June 11, 2008 @ 12:01 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: