Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assume bc in most of these type of headlines, the women and children are NONCOMBATANTS.
This. And, in cases like those, it hasn't been women or children who have DECLARED war. They haven't had the power to do so. It has been almost exclusively men who have.
However, I agree that men who who fight and die in any kind of battle are almost always forgotten. At the very least, their suffering is diminished and deconstructed to mindless jingoism. One of the many reasons, especially as the mom of two sons, I'm passionately anti-war.
But maybe the better question to ask is, why have leaders throughout history, those with great power -- who begin wars and incite terrorism, both international and domestic -- who have been almost exclusively male -- consider their brothers expendable?
Those are just a few headlines, but the real place you see the reference happens within the stories:
These are horrific male dominated warfare type killings. In this kind of terrorist rampage, or any kind of rampage, women and children are further fodder to be raped and murdered to punish and terrorize further. It is a male thing. Mostly women and children are unarmed and victims and mentioning them shows the extent of cruelty and terrorism. It is NOT about women being infantalized, that is a twisted and false way of looking at it.
Just think about it, if there is a natural disaster, shooting etc. even if men are killed, the news always wants to talk about how many women and children were killed. While sure it's tragic, in no way is grown adult women being killed anywhere near as tragic as little kids being killed, yet the news and the like lumps them in the same category, thereby saying grown adult women are on the same level as little kids, basically infantilizing them, does anyone else see how wrong this is?
The infantilization goes well beyond that. We create countless programs and clubs for girls under the assumption that they need special help to achieve things that boys do. We even have one here locally for girls/young women aspiring to comedy so that they may practice in a "safe space" where they feel comfortable to try out bits and routines. You know, without men around who will only humiliate and mock them. Men are far more likely to be threatened online, yet we condition women to take language and threats that frankly do not usually rise to the level of threats against men, as things of a criminal nature. Similarly, although men are far, far more likely to be the targets and victims (often dead) of violent crime, we treat female victimization as a greater offense than victimization of men. Also similarly, female perpetrators are given lesser sentences for identical crimes on the basis that women necessarily represent less of a threat or they just lose their minds sometimes. I think of the Andrea Yates case from 20 years ago, who systematically drowned and murdered her kids in her house and then blamed it on depression. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between depression and homicidal behavior. Imagine the same situation but with a father doing the same to his kids and then blaming it on depression? Yeah. Or consider cases in which two college students are drunk and have sex and, afterwards, the male is prosecuted for sexual assault, the premise being that men are responsible for their actions at all times, regardless the circumstances, but women are not. Or the idea that telling women not to get drunk and place themselves in such circumstances is "victim blaming." Imagine someone calling it "victim blaming" if a young white man drives into the south side of Chicago and flaunts $100 bills and brags about his money at every turn and is eventually mugged? Would anyone castigate people who exclaim, "Gee, that was a really stupid thing to do?" Or the societal expectation that men should be able to brush off sexual harassment or suggestive remarks and get over it while sexual harassment of women requires formal processes and is inherently a long-term damage to women?
No one speaks of "toxic masculinity" or "white privilege" during a natural disaster.
Yes. Feminists, like everyone else, work on the assumption that a man will protect them when they require it, too, regardless if they admit that publicly or to themselves.
It's always assumed that men will do these things for women, whether it's protecting their wives/girlfriends during a shooting at a theater in Aurora, a mass shooting in Las Vegas, when a fire strikes your home, wherever. Masculinity ceases being "toxic" at those times but returns to toxicity in the more important contexts, like the workplace or on television and movies or on the college campus. That's where oppression is most pronounced and most damaging, of course.
The infantilization goes well beyond that. We create countless programs and clubs for girls under the assumption that they need special help to achieve things that boys do. We even have one here locally for girls/young women aspiring to comedy so that they may practice in a "safe space" where they feel comfortable to try out bits and routines. You know, without men around who will only humiliate and mock them. Men are far more likely to be threatened online, yet we condition women to take language and threats that frankly do not usually rise to the level of threats against men, as things of a criminal nature. Similarly, although men are far, far more likely to be the targets and victims (often dead) of violent crime, we treat female victimization as a greater offense than victimization of men. Also similarly, female perpetrators are given lesser sentences for identical crimes on the basis that women necessarily represent less of a threat or they just lose their minds sometimes. I think of the Andrea Yates case from 20 years ago, who systematically drowned and murdered her kids in her house and then blamed it on depression. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between depression and homicidal behavior. Imagine the same situation but with a father doing the same to his kids and then blaming it on depression? Yeah. Or consider cases in which two college students are drunk and have sex and, afterwards, the male is prosecuted for sexual assault, the premise being that men are responsible for their actions at all times, regardless the circumstances, but women are not. Or the idea that telling women not to get drunk and place themselves in such circumstances is "victim blaming." Imagine someone calling it "victim blaming" if a young white man drives into the south side of Chicago and flaunts $100 bills and brags about his money at every turn and is eventually mugged? Would anyone castigate people who exclaim, "Gee, that was a really stupid thing to do?" Or the societal expectation that men should be able to brush off sexual harassment or suggestive remarks and get over it while sexual harassment of women requires formal processes and is inherently a long-term damage to women?
And on and on.
Men are more likely to be victims... of other males. Men are far more violent and are much more of a danger to other women than women are to women, or than women are to men. This is why this discrepancy exists. Men commit 90% of homicides in the US. A woman is most likely to be murdered by her husband or male SO, if anyone at all, and among her most vulnerable times are during pregnancy. A married man is still most likely to be murdered by another man, because women just don't kill like men do. Violence against women gets the attention it does because it happens in much more intimate scenarios, and scenarios/places that should be "safe." Like their own homes, among and by people they know and love.
Men do tend to attack one another more often than they attack women (and I think a lot of that in the US at least is probably gang-related stuff or violence over other issues, like drugs, owing money, drunk fighting, etc.) but women in relationships with men are at a higher danger than any other woman of being attacked or murdered... by men.
The problem there is male violence.
Andrea Yates's defense included postpartum psychosis, which is more than just depression. Whether she actually suffered from it would be another issue to discuss, but that can definitely cause women to be homicidal.
The infantilization goes well beyond that. We create countless programs and clubs for girls under the assumption that they need special help to achieve things that boys do. We even have one here locally for girls/young women aspiring to comedy so that they may practice in a "safe space" where they feel comfortable to try out bits and routines. You know, without men around who will only humiliate and mock them. Men are far more likely to be threatened online, yet we condition women to take language and threats that frankly do not usually rise to the level of threats against men, as things of a criminal nature. Similarly, although men are far, far more likely to be the targets and victims (often dead) of violent crime, we treat female victimization as a greater offense than victimization of men. Also similarly, female perpetrators are given lesser sentences for identical crimes on the basis that women necessarily represent less of a threat or they just lose their minds sometimes. I think of the Andrea Yates case from 20 years ago, who systematically drowned and murdered her kids in her house and then blamed it on depression. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between depression and homicidal behavior. Imagine the same situation but with a father doing the same to his kids and then blaming it on depression? Yeah. Or consider cases in which two college students are drunk and have sex and, afterwards, the male is prosecuted for sexual assault, the premise being that men are responsible for their actions at all times, regardless the circumstances, but women are not. Or the idea that telling women not to get drunk and place themselves in such circumstances is "victim blaming." Imagine someone calling it "victim blaming" if a young white man drives into the south side of Chicago and flaunts $100 bills and brags about his money at every turn and is eventually mugged? Would anyone castigate people who exclaim, "Gee, that was a really stupid thing to do?" Or the societal expectation that men should be able to brush off sexual harassment or suggestive remarks and get over it while sexual harassment of women requires formal processes and is inherently a long-term damage to women?
And on and on.
Anyone who has a son can tell you there are many, many, MANY educational, club, and arts opportunities for free for girls, and very little for boys. A local rec club had a skateboarding for girls event .. and if you had a son? You had to pay to go. Free for girls, of course.
Even the libraries offer girls only classes and activities.
Men are more likely to be victims... of other males. Men are far more violent and are much more of a danger to other women than women are to women, or than women are to men. This is why this discrepancy exists. Men commit 90% of homicides in the US. A woman is most likely to be murdered by her husband or male SO, if anyone at all, and among her most vulnerable times are during pregnancy. A married man is still most likely to be murdered by another man, because women just don't kill like men do. Violence against women gets the attention it does because it happens in much more intimate scenarios, and scenarios/places that should be "safe." Like their own homes, among and by people they know and love.
Men do tend to attack one another more often than they attack women (and I think a lot of that in the US at least is probably gang-related stuff or violence over other issues, like drugs, owing money, drunk fighting, etc.) but women in relationships with men are at a higher danger than any other woman of being attacked or murdered... by men.
The problem there is male violence.
Andrea Yates's defense included postpartum psychosis, which is more than just depression. Whether she actually suffered from it would be another issue to discuss, but that can definitely cause women to be homicidal.
There is also no causal connection between psychosis and homicidal behavior.
Not only are you missing the point with regards to violence. None of what you cite dispels the notion that we infantilize women. You avoid discussing differential treatment in criminal justice sentencing and all the other areas I cited.
A small percentage of the total male population accounts for the criminal mayhem you cite. Interestingly, 2% of that male population - black males - account for half of the homicides in this country. We can't talk about that, of course, unless we invoke some ridiculous conspiracy theory that involves teachers, school administrators, cops, district attorneys, judges, juries, though. "Courageous conversations" up only to a certain point, then shut it down.
BTW, female domestic violence against men is underreported. We do have some stats that reflect this. This would be an example of "female privilege," where women are allowed to use physical violence in ways that will never be sanctioned for men. While we've always had punishments for men who beat women, if you go back to the 19th century here, men beaten by their wives were publicly punished/ostracized for being beaten.
Anyone who has a son can tell you there are many, many, MANY educational, club, and arts opportunities for free for girls, and very little for boys. A local rec club had a skateboarding for girls event .. and if you had a son? You had to pay to go. Free for girls, of course.
Even the libraries offer girls only classes and activities.
I'm a teacher. We have a lost generation of boys. I've said it here before: I ask my female students what they're going to do when they're done with high school and I have yet to encounter one who doesn't have some kind of plan. I ask the boys and I would estimate half have no plan.
You can see the feminist-type response just above: "Well, it's the men's/boy's fault!" Typical with this crowd.
There is also no causal connection between psychosis and homicidal behavior.
Not only are you missing the point with regards to violence. None of what you cite dispels the notion that we infantilize women. You avoid discussing differential treatment in criminal justice sentencing and all the other areas I cited.
A small percentage of the total male population accounts for the criminal mayhem you cite. Interestingly, 2% of that male population - black males - account for half of the homicides in this country. We can't talk about that, of course, unless we invoke some ridiculous conspiracy theory that involves teachers, school administrators, cops, district attorneys, judges, juries, though. "Courageous conversations" up only to a certain point, then shut it down.
BTW, female domestic violence against men is underreported. We do have some stats that reflect this. This would be an example of "female privilege," where women are allowed to use physical violence in ways that will never be sanctioned for men. While we've always had punishments for men who beat women, if you go back to the 19th century here, men beaten by their wives were punished for being beaten.
Nothing that you just said changes what I just said.
Even if female DV is underreported, we know for a fact that women do not kill like men do. No violence is okay, but I think most people would rather be hit or even beaten than dead. Women on average cannot inflict as much damage as men can. Women are not as strong, are typically smaller. Most men can fight off a woman. I don't think most women can fight off a man, at least not as easily. Women should not get special treatment but the damage each can and do cause should be taken into consideration. And that difference is partly why the murder rates, for one, are so different.
You can call any of it "infantilizing women," I'll call it like I see it. A male violence problem.
Your views on rape are problematic enough, no need to address everything else you said. You obviously have an agenda here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
