The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the killing of even more men.

When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

 

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.


Well, that new information changes things a bit, doesn’t it? So why then could this editorial not be titled “A Policy of Murder”? Why is all its emphasis on the rape of women and none of its emphasis on the murder of men? Why is this revelation thrown away as a tagline at the end of the article and offered only as “an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur” rather than as an indication of how utterly we are failing to direct equal compassion and attention toward the atrocities inflicted upon men?

“this policy of rape flourishes only because it is ignored” while the death of men simply does not matter

Adam Jones, author/editor of Gendercide and Genocide (2004), has studied these issues in depth. Genocide may be defined as the attempt to exterminate a given population. Gendercide is the selective mass killing of one gender. As Jones makes clear, the gender of choice for extermination is nearly always the male gender. In part, males are selected because males are more easily assumed to pose a threat, but also because males may be slaughtered without over-burdening the slaughterers with guilt and trauma. Moreover, you can slaughter males and provoke only minimal world outrage. In fact, the media will focus mainly on hardships faced by the women deprived of men. [...]

“One of the best indicators of the special vulnerability of men and boys is the frequency with which relatives and friends sought to disguise them in women’s clothing,” asserts Jones. “The African Rights report ‘Death, Despair and Defiance’ cites a number of examples of such procedures, which are reminiscent of similar practices followed in the Bosnian and Kosovan conflicts of the 1990s.”[5] Clearly, if females were specially targeted, males would not be donning female clothing. Yet, as the media reaction to Rwandan atrocities makes plain, women will be presented as the victims almost no matter what the truth. Jones continues: source

Why discrimination against males, exaggerating female suffering to the extremes?

Human-Stupidity strived to look behind the facts. we want to understand WHY things are as they are. Why is mail hurt, male suffering and male victimization actively ignored to the point of falsifying statistics. How come that a "Violence against Women act" was not shot down as unconstitutionally sexist by the supreme court.

Why can Hillary Clinton get away with saying that women are the main victims of war, because their husbands and brothers die in war? Not to even mention that there are credible sources that Hillary Clinton battered Bill Clinton in the White House, of course, unpunished.

 

Even in China, special protection for women, ignoring men

Well, you’ve absolutely got to admit Female Victimization in Bosnia, or Arabia, or China, or whatever . . . right?” People look at me then as if to say: Either he admits MP/FV or his credibility is totally shot. Well, I could be wrong but the best evidence I know of does not support the MP/FV paradigm anywhere at all. My research indicates that matrisensus influence is always a match for patriarchal influence, and brutal places are brutal to both sexes. China? Over a ten-year period, 59,543 men and no women died in coal mining accidents alone![19] Male slaves trafficked into China find prosecuting their slavemasters particularly difficult because Chinese law only protects women from being trafficked in as slaves.[20]

You can go to a brutal place, catalogue only the brutality toward women, and on that basis conclude that women are the victims, but if you don’t research conditions for men, if you don’t compare the female victimization against male victimization, your conclusion is logically bankrupt. Even worse, our perceptions of gender reality are further distorted when the only comparison that is regularly made is the comparison between conditions experienced by the average woman vs. conditions experienced by the elite male. source

Footnote [20]       See, Kang Yi, “Some human traffickers may walk away in ‘slave’ case,” June 15, 2007, www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm. “‘Those traffickers who lure migrant workers, mainly adult males, to do forced labor will not be convicted as the criminal code only covers those who traffic women and children,’ Guan Zhongzhi, a lawyer with Zhonghuan Law Firm told chinadaily.com.cn. The legal loophole has put male victims in an awkward position when fighting against their traffickers in the court of law.”

One Comment

Leave a Reply