Men Are The Expendable Gender

[Kegg]

Kegg's so-called logic to justify his accusation is ridiculous- how anyone could arrive at the conclusion he did is beyond me.

Explain. I'm not detailing this a third time.

It is therefore obviously a tactic no different to the "misogynist!" argument- a blatant attempt to soil the character of someone he disagrees with who is getting too involved in their argument.

That isn't true. I didn't even disagree with you prior to that point. I quibbled a little - terminology, that the issue of how the working male is more complex than just being a meat grinder for the war machine - but beyond that didn't have much of a problem with it. It can be observed most of my arguments were with Hermiod over how he defined refrigerator girl and such. I'm mostly silent in your threads of the discussion.

If Kegg wants to use this thread to claim I'm suddenly hating all my fellows on the BBS and viewing them in the way he described, due to HIS ridiculous and evidently deliberate misreading of my posts, is it any wonder I'm angry?

Righteous anger at being found out to use an underhanded debating tactic - or righteous anger at being discovered to basically say something very inflammantory - is a ludricous use of righteous anger.

It's basically inexplicable righteous anger. I'm explaining what it is you've said, it's practically stating the obvious, and your responses haven't refuted anything I've said to this point. Indeed it hasn't been much of a coherent defence. Most of it rests on the assumption you were clearly talking about the working class, but that ignores that it was a direct response to my accusation you had an imaginary persecution complex in relation to the board - basically, there's a logical disconnect in your argument that can only be explained by the two related possibilites I've presented repeatedly.

Which you try rather desperately to ignore, despite your earlier vaunted respect for logic and reason.

Anyone fancy talking about the original post ? No ?

I did on the first page and a few pages after. My view hasn't changed.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

You know what, Kegg? I give up. You're insistant on taking this totally incorrect leap in logic you've made and running with it. I've outlined, quite simply, what I was saying- which I would have thought obvious anyway- and explained that you called my condemnations of the treatment of lower status men and boys (note the gender aspect- not just class, not just wealth- it is a gendered issue, which you keep denying by insisting it is primarily a class one only) an "imaginary persecution complex". I said this was not so- that men and boys have been treated as I claim historically and to deny that and call it "imaginary" is incorrect. I then gave a list of other groups- blacks, women, jews, chinese- whose maltreatment you wouldn't deny, and pointed out my issue is just the same. You wouldn't say a Jew bemoaning the holocaust (and note that was only one of four examples I gave) had an "imaginary persecution complex" would you?

Your response?

I called you a Nazi.

Bull.

And you've spent the last three pages with this smug, superior, "let's go through this again, step one..." attitude in an ongoing attempt to defend this ridiculous and offensive claim and further discredit me.

This entire ongoing argument is built completely on your insistance that I compared not only you but the rest of the board to a Nazi. This is a blatant mistruth. Your continued insistance that it happened when it clearly did not is disgusting. Furthermore, you accuse me of "moving the goalposts", when my point has been the same one throughout- that you are misinterpreting my posts, and given that any read through of my posts in this thread should demonstrate where I'm coming from, you are obviously doing it deliberately. What's worse still, you are moving the goalposts yourself by insisting now that my condemnation of the maltreatment of these men and boys was in fact me insisting I was being persecuted. To boost this claim, you twisted my other ongoing point about a wall of ideological bias that was hostile to the discussion- as evidenced with the many "It's just the OP's misogyny" comments- and insisted this was me comparing MYSELF to the mistreated groups I named. You made a ridiculous leap in logic my posts never did, and out of nowhere took one point and welded it to another in a manner that could be used to condemn me and make claims that I was, essentially, flaming you.

No different from the "misogyny!" move Deckerd made.

 

[Thestral]

Amazons Attack, right? I've never read or given much credence to that one, though IIRC it's still technically in continuity.

Yes. Another thing that fits the original purpose of this thread. The history of DC's Amazons is steeped in misandry. Such a thing never should have slipped past DC's editors.

I'm certainly not going to defend what little I know of "Amazons Attack." But the thing about DC's Amazons is... from what I've read up on, it's almost (though not quite) as ill-defined as the Hawkman/Hawkgirl story, with varying degrees of what-might-be-termed misandry. But that might be taking this thread even further afield.

Sorry, that was perhaps longer than you cared about.

Thanks for the update. I've found DC's recent continuity overbearing and difficult to follow, though I've generally stopped reading comics full stop.

For myself, other than the JSA I mostly just Wiki-spoil myself and lurk at CBR forums.

Cassie and Vision did but then one of the side story books, I forget which, depicted Asgardian and one of the others (I forget who, sorry) as having joined as well.

She-Hulk's own book basically established that a whole bunch of seemingly continuity breaking, out of character decisions were actually made by people's alternate universe counterparts. It was all a bit of fun, really, but it did lead to Jennifer getting a blood transfusion from her counterpart that counteracted the effects of the SPIN Tech Stark had used on her and gave her her powers back.

Crazy, man. But far more bizarre things have happened in comics I guess.

Yes, in general Marvel does a better job of this in my opinion.

Well, you do have some good examples from DC. Zatanna, Black Canary, and Hawkgirl being three of the most prominent off the top of my head. Starfire would probably be another. But overall you might well be right. Part of it I think is that DC is much more interested in "mythology" type characters with less attention to their personal lives, and I think I'd be right in saying the sexual mores of most DC characters are stricter than that of Marvelites. I think this might in some way connect back to the original topic, but meh.

Why is this still the case in 2010 ? This illustrates my point - she's not special because she's a woman. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.

Ok, so why this predilection? At the core of it, the unconscious assumption is that women must be preserved because they can't take care of themselves. They're too delicate, they're too fragile, they're helpless when you get right down to it. So at the core of it, why is a woman soldier dying more tragic, more front-page news? Because it's not just a sad thing when somebody dies, but it's a failure on the part of the military or of her "protectors."

Well, yes, I'd agree with that. As I've said, this isn't some organised conspiracy to promote the needs of women. This is something men did too, we created a society where women are treated as special, fragile things that need to be protected, when they really aren't. They can look after themselves.

Why do male soldiers get buried on page 10? Because their deaths, while tragic, are not the cause of moral outrage, because they're manly men who knew what they were signing up for and there's a lingering sense of "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."

I would guess that a woman entering the armed forces is equally aware of what she's signing up for.

So long as males are the "neutral" or "default" gender in general cultural/societal understanding, men will always be the default cannon fodder in fictional works and in the way we react to the deaths of male soldiers. I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle by saying "men are being oppressed by being expendable." Change societal perceptions so that women are seen as equally capable to men and so that it's less of an emotional shock when a woman is killed, and that "oppression" will go away too. Of course, it should always still be a shock when women are killed. And it should be a shock when men are killed. I don't support requiring women to register for Selective Service because I'm opposed to Selective Service in the first place.

Which means, sad to say for you, feminism still has more work to do towards a truly equitable society.


ETA: Some people get very upset very easily.

 

[Kegg]

I give up.

Evidently not:

you called my condemnations of the treatment of lower status men and boys (note the gender aspect- not just class, not just wealth- it is a gendered issue, which you keep denying by insisting it is primarily a class one only) an "imaginary persecution complex".

This is an impressive bit of fiction, that requires an inspiredly wilful misinterpretation of what I wrote, since I was clearly refering to the persecution complex you had regardining members of the board. To jump to the conclusion I was talking about working men (I've used that term and working class, incidentally - just as you sometimes simply used 'men and boys', a difference of emphasis) would require you not to read what I read, but to invent what I had said.

And it is this endless capability of changing the goalposts and restructuring the argument - even in bold defiance of what has actually been written - that I find so offensive. Not to me personally, but the very idea of having a conversation at all.

And you've spent the last three pages with this smug, superior, "let's go through this again, step one..." attitude in an ongoing attempt to defend this ridiculous and offensive claim and further discredit me.

Indeed. Tactics like these should always be pointed out.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

This is an impressive bit of fiction, that requires an inspiredly wilful misinterpretation of what I wrote, since I was clearly refering to the persecution complex you had regardining members of the board.

As I've explained: that was your word. You used the word "persecution". I NEVER used that word to describe the board's attitude to my opinions, or anyone elses. It's your thinking up terms and applying them to others. Words like "persecution" or "Nazi". These originate in your mind yet somehow jump to me

ONCE AGAIN: I never in any way claimed I was persecuted. As I said, I was condemning the manner in which those supporting the ideological standard of "Male 'oppression'? Oh, please. Shut up" attempt to shut down the conversation with: "oh, it's just the OP again" or similar "we-don't-have-to-take-this-seriously" comments. That frustrated me no end. Then you said that these attempts to ignore arguments of male maltreatment were justified because I was dealing with "imaginary" ideas of persecution. Since the only "persecution" I was dealing with was that of the men and boys historically, obviously that was what you meant. Persecution= attack. I never accused the board or you or anyone of systematically attacking me but instead of attempting TO WITHDRAW FROM DISCUSSION COMPLETELY BY SHUTTING DOWN THE DEBATE. Since I made no claim to my own persecution, your use of "imaginary persecution complex" obviously referred to the issue over which I was getting heated and had a "complex"- that issue being the maltreatment of young men and boys.

My posts from that initial point on follow this same logic- you, however, now claim I was actually talking about myself. No, Kegg. That was YOU who decided I was talking about "my persecution", just as YOU decided I had called you a Nazi and have spent three pages insisting it. These ideas originate with you. You decided I had a "persecution complex" about the board, evidently, when I did not, and you decided my condemnation of what I CLEARLY interpreted as you denying male victimization (re-read those posts, Kegg, or anyone else reading this) was me calling you a Nazi.

 

[Kegg]

This is an impressive bit of fiction, that requires an inspiredly wilful misinterpretation of what I wrote, since I was clearly refering to the persecution complex you had regardining members of the board.

As I've explained: that was your word. You used the word "persecution".

Yep. Indeed, I was referring my belief that your statements indicated a persecution complex, not that you claimed you had a persecution complex.

ONCE AGAIN: I never in any way claimed I was persecuted. As I said, I was condemning the manner in which those supporting the ideological standard of "Male 'oppression'? Oh, please. Shut up" attempt to shut down the conversation with: "oh, it's just the OP again" or similar "we-don't-have-to-take-this-seriously" comments.

That would have been a better response than the one you actually gave.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

This is an impressive bit of fiction, that requires an inspiredly wilful misinterpretation of what I wrote, since I was clearly refering to the persecution complex you had regardining members of the board.

As I've explained: that was your word. You used the word "persecution".

Yep. Indeed, I was referring my belief that your statements indicated a persecution complex, not that you claimed you had a persecution complex.

The point is, your belief was WRONG. Because it originated in your imagination. Yet you used this incorrect belief to evaluate my comments, referring to a "persecution complex" that to me could only refer to my general view on the maltreatment of men and boys, which is the only place I claimed what I define as "persecution". My first post in response to yours clearly demonstrates that this is what I had read in your comment, seeing as it attacks you for dismissing historical reality as "imagined persecution", yet you have spent three pages without ever acknowledging this basic fact. More, your response to THAT post was ANOTHER false belief which you have insisted over and over is real- that I called you a Nazi, that I compared you and indeed the entire board to Nazis.

I did not.

Your entire argument is based on not one but two incorrect assumptions originating in your own imagination. And you have used these false assumptions to soil my reputation. This is disgraceful.

 

[Kegg]

The latest variety of Deranged Nasat's argument is the following:

Yet you used this incorrect belief to evaluate my comments, referring to a "persecution complex" that to me could only refer to my general view on the maltreatment of men and boys, which is the only place I claimed what I define as "persecution".

Apparently, this statement:

This is bizarrely paranoid, and rather unsubstantiated by the thread where I think most concerned have been more patient with your view and Hermoid's than I would have expected. An imaginary persecution complex is never a good idea, especially when, as I've observed, many of your own criticisms on how the working classes and the underclass are exploited - socially and economically in the capitalist system, or politically in a statist system, or used as cannon fodder in wartime, etc. - are neither uncommon nor unacceptable.

Can be read to mean that I am stating that the persecution of the working male is imaginary. If it cannot, his latest indignant claim I am blackening his name does not make sense.

The problem is, this specific post actually points out that the persecution he wants to read as imaginary - how the working males are exploited - is absoutely not reated as such. It's pointed out that since this is not an uncommon criticism his persecution complex is imaginary.

So how can his reading make any sense at all?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here I thought this topic might have something to do with the University of Cambridge's confirmation that women are sturdier than men in terms of their immune systems:

Link

This has come up in research before. Basically, women are designed like Honda Accords and men are typical Detroit steel - we're nearly disposable.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Here is our original exchange, Kegg, reproduced below.

Note: I say I believe "many people do not want a discussion on these issues but instead to shut down discussion on these issues so as to maintain the ideological status quo". You then say you think "most concerned have been more patient with your view and Hermoid's (NOTE: THAT "VIEW" WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDABLE MALE IDEA IS TRUE AND MEN AND BOYS HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY FOR IT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE VIEW WE SHARE- PLUS IT IS THE VIEW THOSE PEOPLE I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING QUOTE WANT TO DISMISS- AND YOUR COMMENT IS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THAT QUOTE) than I would have expected. An imaginary persecution complex is never a good idea (So, that view is an "imaginary persecution complex")

Now note my response to you- it clearly interprets your quotes as I have outlined above:"And it isn't an "imaginary persecution complex". By no means. It is not imaginary when I point out how my people were and are treated as expendable, violence and suffering inflicted on them ignored, dismissed, justified or encouraged. Whether you agree my fuss is justified or not- see how Iquana argued it wasn't, for example- is something else, but it is not imaginary".

This is partly why I advised Hermiod in a PM to drop this thread. To stop it and give it a rest. Because he has to know it is not in any way productive. All he'll get is grief and no-one wants to listen- many people do not want a discussion on these issues but instead to shut down discussion on these issues so as to maintain the ideological status quo.

This is bizarrely paranoid, and rather unsubstantiated by the thread where I think most concerned have been more patient with your view and Hermoid's than I would have expected. An imaginary persecution complex is never a good idea, especially when, as I've observed, many of your own criticisms on how the working classes and the underclass are exploited - socially and economically in the capitalist system, or politically in a statist system, or used as cannon fodder in wartime, etc. - are neither uncommon nor unacceptable.

The gender aspect is, however, usually ignored- at least the realistic male-centred gender view is (feminists were quick to try and use Marxist ideas to describe female positions in society, which is often less logical). And it isn't an "imaginary persecution complex". By no means. It is not imaginary when I point out how my people were and are treated as expendable, violence and suffering inflicted on them ignored, dismissed, justified or encouraged. Whether you agree my fuss is justified or not- see how Iquana argued it wasn't, for example- is something else, but it is not imaginary. Indeed, denying it is ignorance in action.

"More patient than I would have expected". How ignorantly patronising of you. I think I tend to be a lot more patient with the usual nay-sayers and ideologically blinded denialists than I have cause to be. Ignorance is usually what it is- ignorance, and a desire to see what you want to see. It's very, very frustrating to have your entirely valid and logical- and informed- viewpoints arrogantly dismissed by those who wish to maintain the ideological status quo.

I mentioned my view of young men and adolescent boys as "my people"- a subset of humanity treated in certain ways and viewed in certain ways. Would you tell a chinese person the Japanese invasion of China never happened? Would you tell a black person racism never happened? A woman that mass rapes never happened? A Jew the holocaust never happened? That these were all "imaginary?"

My meaning and interpretation is obvious- that you were using "persecution complex" to refer to the historic maltreatment I condemned.

Your response, however?

I called you a Nazi. Yes, with that post above, apparently.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The problem is, this specific post actually points out that the persecution he wants to read as imaginary - how the working males are exploited - is absoutely not reated as such. It's pointed out that since this is not an uncommon criticism his persecution complex is imaginary.

So how can his reading make any sense at all?

You are denying the gender issue by insisting that my concerns are commonly addressed as issues of class and thus I'm wrong to say my view is uncommon or regularly dismissed. I'm pointing out the gender aspect as well as or more importantly than the class, where you are not. So, your comment actually proves my point- my interpretation is unusual, and it is being dismissed- it's being dismissed by the incorrect insistance that making it an issue of class primarily means that the issue as issue-of-gender is acknowledged. In trying to convince me the issue is commonly addressed, you're demonstrating that MY issue isn't- because my issue is gender, not class.

As I said in the above response to your "persecution complex" post.

 

[Kegg]

You then say you think "most concerned have been more patient with your view and Hermoid's (NOTE: THAT "VIEW" WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDABLE MALE IDEA IS TRUE AND MEN AND BOYS HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY FOR IT,)

Hermiod was referring to it in the literary sense, at first at any rate. However, I mostly meant in the sense of defending male identities (or however one wishes to parse it) - you're clearly peas of a pod in that respect.

My meaning and interpretation is obvious- that you were using "persecution complex" to refer to the historic maltreatment I condemned.

Which, as I have pointed out in the post above yours, does not make sense. And that is the problem. It is not actually possible to read what I have said as that, it directly contradicts a whole chunk of the text.

You are denying the gender issue by insisting that my concerns are commonly addressed as issues of class and thus I'm wrong to say my view is uncommon or regularly dismissed. I'm pointing out the gender aspect as well as or more importantly than the class, where you are not. So, your comment actually proves my point- my interpretation is unusual, and it is being dismissed-

And you're being persecuted and we're back to the Nazis and slaveholders and the Japanese militarists. It's not possible to read my comment in any way to mean that the persecution refers to working men.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

And you're being persecuted and we're back to the Nazis and slaveholders and the Japanese militarists. It's not possible to read my comment in any way to mean that the persecution refers to working men.

NO, Kegg.

AGAIN, me claiming dismissal and an attitude of such is NOT THE SAME as claiming PERSECUTION. I never claimed persecution- that was your word, your concept, your imagination. YOU decided I was insisting on persecution- YOU continue to insist on it. I said- in THE VERY QUOTE YOU TYPED YOUR ABOVE QUOTE IN RESPONSE TO- that I felt my valid viewpoint was being DISMISSED. DISMISSED, Kegg, NOT "PERSECUTED". The only person who ever claimed I felt persecuted was and continues to be...YOU.

 

[Pingfah]

Keep going guys, I can see you are making great progress!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Keep going guys, I can see you are making great progress!

I'm sorry, but when I'm accused- against all logic- of calling the members of the BBS community Nazis/slavedrivers/white supremacists, etc, I make a fuss, and yes, I spend a lot of time in that particular thread defending myself and trying to point out to that community that I made no such comparison. If you're so accused, you might make an equal amount of fuss. If not, well, maybe it's not so important to you. But given how apologetic I am, I can't afford to have people abusing that by insisting I've done wrong when I haven't.

 

[Kegg]

Keep going guys, I can see you are making great progress!

Indeed we are. Just a few pages above Deranged Nasat was claiming he read - and must read - my reference to persecution to mean the working males. Since I have pointed out this can't possibly be the case...

THE VERY QUOTE YOU TYPED YOUR ABOVE QUOTE IN RESPONSE TO- that I felt my valid viewpoint was being DISMISSED.

Unfortunately, we have the irritating internet equivalent to a paper trail, which leaves us with quotes like this:

I mentioned my view of young men and adolescent boys as "my people"- a subset of humanity treated in certain ways and viewed in certain ways. Would you tell a chinese person the Japanese invasion of China never happened? Would you tell a black person racism never happened? A woman that mass rapes never happened? A Jew the holocaust never happened? That these were all "imaginary?"

The imaginary being 'imaginary persecution complex', of course. So, no, he wasn't saying that either.

 

[Thestral]

Here I thought this topic might have something to do with the University of Cambridge's confirmation that women are sturdier than men in terms of their immune systems:

Link

This has come up in research before. Basically, women are designed like Honda Accords and men are typical Detroit steel - we're nearly disposable.

You know, just looking at it from a strictly biological point of view, doesn't that make some sense though?

Keep going guys, I can see you are making great progress!

I'm just amazed by the amount of energy put into it and the variety of caps, bolds, etc.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Keep going guys, I can see you are making great progress!

I'm just amazed by the amount of energy put into it and the variety of caps, bolds, etc.

Ooh, boy. I did it again didn't I? Gods, now I want to crawl into a hole and never come out. I'm so embarrassed when this happens. Can I just make the usual apology, we'll pretend I sent the mass load of PMs and all that stuff, and you can all forget about this? I'm too tired to go through the whole business I did last time.

And, yes, when I get enraged, there will be caps, and bolds, and pages and pages of it. I don't get angry often- I'm usually all - but when I do get angry, I get angry. Unfortunately.

Again, sorry you all had to put up with it. I'll probably be laying low for a bit.

 

[Hermiod]

So long as males are the "neutral" or "default" gender in general cultural/societal understanding, men will always be the default cannon fodder in fictional works and in the way we react to the deaths of male soldiers. I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle by saying "men are being oppressed by being expendable." Change societal perceptions so that women are seen as equally capable to men and so that it's less of an emotional shock when a woman is killed, and that "oppression" will go away too. Of course, it should always still be a shock when women are killed. And it should be a shock when men are killed. I don't support requiring women to register for Selective Service because I'm opposed to Selective Service in the first place.

So am I, but rules should be applied equally or not at all.

Which means, sad to say for you, feminism still has more work to do towards a truly equitable society.

Sadly, Feminism is the last thing that will ever create a truly equitable society because it places the needs of women first.

Here I thought this topic might have something to do with the University of Cambridge's confirmation that women are sturdier than men in terms of their immune systems:

Link

This has come up in research before. Basically, women are designed like Honda Accords and men are typical Detroit steel - we're nearly disposable.

Thanks for posting that.

This is purely idle, in no way medically qualified, speculation on my part but could this be because women carry the children ? That they have to have a strong immune system as they may need to look after themselves and their unborn child ?

 

[DevilEyes]

Which means, sad to say for you, feminism still has more work to do towards a truly equitable society.

Sadly, Feminism is the last thing that will ever create a truly equitable society because it places the needs of women first.

That's like saying that the African American Civil Rights would never create a truly equitable society because it placed the needs of blacks first.

I find it funny that every discussion about gender turns to a debate about "battle of the sexes" and a list of complaints about which gender has it better, which is more victimized, etc. Or that feminism is so often treated as some sort of threatening man-hating movement by angry Amazons looking to take away male human rights. It's true that men are also victims of gender-based victimization, but the reason lies in the patriarchal society and the strict gender roles and expectations it enforces. True equality and freedom can only be achieved with doing away with those gender-based restrictions and stereotypes.

Deranged Nasat makes a good point about the victimization of young males and males of lower classes by forcing them to fight in wars, to kill, and risk being killed, even at a very young age. I have always been a staunch opponent of conscription. I feel lucky that I didn't have to go through that, but I believe that nobody should. I also think that males suffer from the gender roles and restrictions just like females do - from the pressure to be "tough", to be successful, to be protectors and breadwinners, to prove themselves through violence, to not show feelings or vulnerability for fear of being considered weak or "effeminate". To quote John Fiske's Television Culture: "Masculinity is a paradox of power and discipline. The privilege of authority is bought by the discipline of duty and service".

However, the theory about "beta males" as being lower on the "food chain" than females just doesn't hold water. Compare the lives of those "beta males" to their mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, and other women in their stratum of society, and it's blatantly obvious that those "beta females" actually have far less power and less opportunities than their male counterparts. Higher up on the society hierarchy, there are far fewer "alpha females" than there are "alpha males" who hold the real power in the society. (Women who are just the wives of powerful men don't count - they don't have any power of their own.) Even in the countries that have achieved higher degrees of equality, there are fewer women with jobs than there are men, women hold fewer positions of power and are rarer in high-paid and prestigious professions, women still earn less than men, even in same jobs, there are far more women among homemakers (who provide unpaid work at home, which means that they are financially dependent on their spouse/partner), and adult women are victims of domestic violence far more often than adult men. In my country, which is certainly not the best in terms of gender equality, though it's not one of the worst, either, it's common for employers to ask female candidates at job interviews if they are married and if they intend to have children, just as it's not uncommon for women to get fired because they got pregnant. Statistics say that, although females have better grades in schools and university, unemployment is much higher among women than among men, women wait longer for their first employment, earn less, are less often the owners of real estate and other property. The professions dominated by women (like teaching) also happen to be less paid ones. Also, the laws of my country are shamefully lenient when it comes to sexual crimes - rape, sexual abuse of children, sex trafficking - as well as domestic violence, while sexual harassment has only less than a decade ago been recognized by law. Now, of course, there are many male victims of sexual violence, domestic abuse, or sexual harassment, and there are also female perpetrators. But it's hard to deny the fact that the majority of victims are female, and that the majority of perpetrators are male, so there are still more women who suffer because of the bad legislation and police work / judicial work in those matters. Although, on the other hand, male victims are probably in an even worse position than female ones, and less likely to have their case heard and taken seriously. The legal definition of rape, for instance, has only been changed a few years ago - before that, the definition was, for decades, restricted to a man forcing himself sexually on a woman he is not married to. No need to explain just how wrong that was on so many levels, and how many patriarchal prejudices it contained.

And let's not even get into the cases of those societies where women have practically no rights and where they are at the mercy of their husbands, fathers or brothers.

How about the practice in China of abandoning and leaving infant girls to die? Parents who are only allowed one child want male children who will work and earn, rather than a female who will get married and leave the family. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm How's that for women being "more valuable"? How's that for "expendable"?

Going back to DN's statement that young males are required to fight for their country, for alpha males and for females; why exactly are those females important in that patriarchal society? Why do they need to be fought for? Because of their own intrinsic value as human beings? No. They are valuable as mothers and potential/future mothers. They have their own duty to the country - to give birth to more people who will make the nation stronger in numbers, to give birth to more young men who will go and fight in new wars to make the nation proud.

Why is this still the case in 2010 ? This illustrates my point - she's not special because she's a woman. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.

Well, yes, I'd agree with that. As I've said, this isn't some organised conspiracy to promote the needs of women. This is something men did too, we created a society where women are treated as special, fragile things that need to be protected, when they really aren't. They can look after themselves.

Why do male soldiers get buried on page 10? Because their deaths, while tragic, are not the cause of moral outrage, because they're manly men who knew what they were signing up for and there's a lingering sense of "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."

I would guess that a woman entering the armed forces is equally aware of what she's signing up for.

So long as males are the "neutral" or "default" gender in general cultural/societal understanding, men will always be the default cannon fodder in fictional works and in the way we react to the deaths of male soldiers. I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle by saying "men are being oppressed by being expendable." Change societal perceptions so that women are seen as equally capable to men and so that it's less of an emotional shock when a woman is killed, and that "oppression" will go away too. Of course, it should always still be a shock when women are killed. And it should be a shock when men are killed. I don't support requiring women to register for Selective Service because I'm opposed to Selective Service in the first place.

Which means, sad to say for you, feminism still has more work to do towards a truly equitable society.

That doesn't change my reaction when I see, bringing this back to the actual topic of the thread, a female soldier dying being front page news while her male colleagues - who make up 96% of Coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan - are buried on page 10.

Ok, it gets tricky. You're right that male soldiers deaths shouldn't be buried on page 10, but then again male soldiers, any soldiers, shouldn't be dying in the first place. It may look like cultural misandry, but it's far far more complicated like that.

For example, why put the female soldier on page 1? Is it because women are "special?" Well... sort of. A woman soldier dying, as you've noted, is more shocking - but it's not because women are being put up on a pedestal, it's because at the root of it all, they're still being treated as incapable. Why is a female soldier dying a shock? Well, because there's a cultural predilection for taking care of females, keeping them safe from harm.

Ok, so why this predilection? At the core of it, the unconscious assumption is that women must be preserved because they can't take care of themselves. They're too delicate, they're too fragile, they're helpless when you get right down to it. So at the core of it, why is a woman soldier dying more tragic, more front-page news? Because it's not just a sad thing when somebody dies, but it's a failure on the part of the military or of her "protectors."

Why do male soldiers get buried on page 10? Because their deaths, while tragic, are not the cause of moral outrage, because they're manly men who knew what they were signing up for and there's a lingering sense of "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."

Exactly. As I said earlier, it's not that women are more valuable - it's that they're still basically seen as those weak, helpless creatures who can't take care of themselves; that's why violence against women is treated in a similar way as violence towards children, or pets. Saying that this means that females are more highly valued or have more rights, is like claiming that pet dogs are more valued and have more rights than humans, just because people tend to get more shocked and outraged at a fictional killing of a dog, than most murders of humans, which happen all the time. Adult males are seen as "fair game", in wars especially, because they are regarded as strong, threatening and able to defend themselves... even when it doesn't make any sense, as with helpless prisoners, and even though, in reality, many women can fight just well (especially when the fighting is done with guns, bombs etc. as it is today, rather than in hand to hand combat as it was in Middle Ages), and many males who get killed in wars are very young and inexperienced. This results in paradoxical media treatment of war crimes and war victims - as explored in that article that Hermiod linked to a few pages earlier, rapes and abuse of women in wars in the Balkans got much more coverage in Western media than the mass murders of adult males (prisoners of war or even civilians), even though the latter crime was much more prevalent and the majority of victims were male. I've seen an example on TrekBBS a few months ago - someone mentioned Ratko Mladic as an example of a notorious war criminal, but described him only as "Mladic and his army that committed mass rapes" or something to that effect - a truly puzzling statement, since the crime that Mladic is infamous for, and the main reason he is wanted by the International Tribunal in Hague and charged with genocide, is, of course, the execution of 8000 men and boys in Srebrenica. This, considered the largest mass murder in Europe post-WW2, is a clear example of ethnic-based and gender-based crime. And it's easy to see just how the perpetrators' minds worked, and how the murder was based on the patriarchal stereotypes described above: it didn't matter if they were civilians, if they were young or elderly, it didn't matter that they were completely helpless, all Muslim adult or adolescent males were seen as the enemy that must be removed.

I was joking in the sense that I don't really think a WNBA superstar (and formed Lady Volunteer, hence why I know her) is going to get drunk and rape Mini-Me. I wasn't joking with my point that there are some women who have a physical power imbalance over some men, so how can you say that women can never be a threat to a man?

True. No doubt that there are far more male rapists than female, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't rape/sexually abuse a man... or another woman... or a child. Or that she be physically violent or endanger them in other ways. It is really absurd to state that "a drunken woman is no danger to anyone but herself". A drunken person is always a danger to themselves and to other people.

Going back to the example of drunken sex that started this discussion... I can't remember who asked why it was OK for a woman to feel taken advantage of, but not for a man: does it really happen like that? I can't remember when I've seen a movie or a TV show suggest that the woman has been taken advantage of in that situation, usually when you have such a scene, it's usually just both of them feeling confused and embarrassed, "what did we do last night". Unless it's the case of a guy actually trying to get the woman drunk in order to score - which does happen. I remember when a guy very obviously and unsuccessfully tried to get me drunk ("Here's another drink on the house..." "Thanks. [drinks it] Now I'm off to dance with my friends" "No, no, you have to have another drink" [puts a full glass in front of me] "No, thanks." [leaving, thinking to myself "what an idiot, even if I were 10 times drunker than I am, I still wouldn't sleep with him" )