Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
At the 1998 First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvadore, Clinton said, "Women have always been the primary victims of war."
It is one matter to champion feminist causes. But Clinton has been polarizing the discussion. If an academic citation to show that non-combatant "battle-age" males are the overwhelming targets of violence is necessary or desirable, then consider Effacing the Male: Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion in the Kosovo War by Adam Jones, Ph.D. Published in Transitions: The Journal of Men's Perspectives, 21: 1-3 (2001).
Here's the abstract:
The Kosovo war of 1999 offered an excellent opportunity to analyze the representation of gender and violent victimization in the mass media. The present article focuses on the motif of "gendercide," or gender-selective mass killing -- in this case, of "battle-age" ethnic-Albanian men. A broad sample of media commentary is presented to demonstrate that "unworthy" male victims tend to be marginalized or ignored entirely in mass-media coverage. A trio of common marginalization strategies is discussed, and a theoretical framework of "first-order," "second-order," and "third-order" gendering is proposed to clarify the deficit in coverage. This deficit is then contrasted with the attention given to the victimization experiences of "worthy" victims, such as women, children, and the elderly. Finally, the small handful of responsible and insightful media reports on gender-selective atrocities against Kosovar men is evaluated for the alternative it may offer to "effacing the male" from coverage of war and violence.
The emphasis on womens' health has been to the detriment of black mens' health; this is another story. The point is that Clinton's words and record suggests that she will remain a polarizing figure.
There are lots of ways that civilians are victimized by war. Rape is one of those ways. Perhaps Clinton was including rape as victimization when she made that statement. 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."
Quibbling about this however, does not disguise the fact that you really had to go hunting to make it out that Senator Clinton harms males.
Also, I do not know why you attribute research in women's medical issues as the responsibility of Senator Clinton alone. Are you saying no male politicians have wanted to give research dollars to women's medical issues?
Sorry, but you just have not made your case. You stated that Hillary Clinton as president would be bad for men.
Not proven. Not even slightly supported.
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.
I will quote from Adam Jones on the question of reporting rape in the Kosovo war. The article by Jones comes out one year after Clinton's remark, so it is a good indication of attitudes prevalent at the time. I see from your remarks that matters have not changed. Adams writes:
Another phenomenon in public discussion of the Kosovo war and the Balkans more generally has been the privileging of rape or mass rape of women over the slaughter or mass slaughter of (non-combatant) males. The implicit prioritizing of sexually-assaulted women, often on ambiguous or scanty evidence, reflected both age-old biases and more recent feminist activism on the issue of mass rapes in Bosnia and elsewhere. While feminist research in this area is to be commended and learned from, it has also contributed to a one-sided depiction of the atrocities of war that tends to consign the male victim to oblivion.
Again, this is not to minimize atrocities committed against women. Mentioning widespread violence against non-combatant males does not amount to a repudiation of feminism. When I read someone who writes that it makes sense not to lump battle-age males in with women, children and the elderly since all battle age males are participants, then I see that non-combatant battle-age males are in that person's blind spot. It's the same blind spot in the media. Clinton had it also. Clinton is not representing men by privileging women as the primary victims of violence in war. But perhaps she has read Adam Jones ad interim.
My point is not that rape is worse than murder. I never said that and I don't believe it. I was merely positing a reason why Clinton might have said that women and children were more often victims of war.
I do object, however, to your blanket statement that this proves that Clinton would be bad for men. One statement, made at a conference in a foreign country years ago hardly reflects a political position that will negatively impact her male constituents in this country these many years later.
I do not question your concern about war victims. What I question is your blanket statement that Clinton would be bad for men. You have not defined your terms, not seemed to have truly understood that when you make such a statement (which could be contrued as sexist on its face -- the notion that a female president diminishes men in and of itself) you need to demonstrate that she would somehow be bad for men in ways that her rivals would not.
I think your men vs. women thinking reflects a false dichotomy. Your original statement would seem to defy logical. You may think it. You may feel it. But you cannot prove it. At least you certainly have not done so. Therefore, I belief you cannot.
It is not up to me to disprove your statement, which amounts to some sort hysterical charge. It is up to you to prove what you have said if you expect others to find it credible.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
