- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Also, war uproots and makes refugees of probably more women and children than adult, fighting age males because it makes sense not to characterize participants in war a "victims."
You're mistaken. Non-combatant battle-age victims are not "participants"--non-combatant means that they are not participants, but confusing non-combatant battle-age males with participants is common, as Adam Jones demonstrates.
Limitations of space make it difficult to make the case I'd like to make--I suggest Googling for the article "Effacing the males" by Adam Jones. There is little point in my cutting and pasting the article here.
It's a matter of opinion that I had to reach far back to find a sufficient reason not to support Clinton. For me it is a reminder of a pattern.
The question of womens' heath versus mens' health is really another matter--perhaps it vitiates my case to mention it without documenting it--it is true that both male and female legislators had a role in exaggerating the disparity in medical research on women at the expense of men, and in particular, at the expense of black men.
