2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

No, by so obviously mischaracterising the point the picture is trying to make.

The point, just to be clear, not being that "men lose their buddies" but that "men lose their lives".

I know. Which is why I was saying that compared to women stuck in combat zones women who only lose their male buddies/relatives/partners, while tragic and upsetting, got off comparatively lightly. I never said anything about men losing buddies.

Edit: Hey she even mentioned that when she talked about them being turned into refugees.

[Berkut]

The totality of her comment is lsot I guess on those who are desperate to be offended at any suggestion that someone other than themselves deserves some thought when it comes to suffering.

The basic point is pretty simple - war is not only about those who actually do the fighting and dying, and by the way, in today's wars it is often women and children doing the dying anyway.

You have to be pretty desperate to be offended to find it objectionable to notice that women often and as a matter of course suffer terribly as a result of war.

[Martinus]

You have to have a pretty sever case of misogyny to draw that conclusion from her words.

I disagree. Saying that women have it worse because women lose their men (whereas men just lose their lives) is a pretty severe case of misandry.

Except she didn't say women "had it worse than men". What she said is completely uncontroversial when taken in context:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. "

She is not saying women have it worse than men (although it is interesting that you operate from the assumption that only men lose their lives in war, and that loss of life is the only way in which people can be victims, which is of course just completely untrue), she is saying that when there is war, women are always primary victims. Not the only victims, but rather that when some man is killed, he is not the only victim, others are *directly* impacted.

You have to assume such an incredible level of stupid to interpret her words to mean that some guy getting killed is NOT a victim. What is the point? Other than to appeal to your own sense of manufactured outrage?

Oh wait, now I see the point.

Sorry but this is a ridiculous attempt to white wash that quote.

Saying that "women are primary victims of war" is the same as saying "women have it worse than men" - otherwise the statement is pointless, when worded this way - this is really a binary thing, humanity is composed of two groups, men and women - if you are singling one group and saying it is a primary victim, you are naturally implying that members of that group have it worse than members of the other group.

[Martinus]

No, by so obviously mischaracterising the point the picture is trying to make.

The point, just to be clear, not being that "men lose their buddies" but that "men lose their lives".

I know. Which is why I was saying that compared to women stuck in combat zones women who only lose their male buddies/relatives/partners, while tragic and upsetting, got off comparatively lightly. I never said anything about men losing buddies.

Edit: Hey she even mentioned that when she talked about them being turned into refugees.

Ok I understood your part about losing your buddies and relatives as pertaining to men.

[Martinus]

When I say, for example "Valmy is the primary source of arguments in his marriage" - you'd have to be an idiot to read it as saying "both Valmy and his wife contribute equally to arguments in his marriage" - it would be read by anyone as saying that Valmy is worse.

[derspiess]

You have to be pretty desperate to be offended to find it objectionable to notice that women often and as a matter of course suffer terribly as a result of war.

But that's not what she said.  She didn't just say that women suffer and suffer terribly as a result of war, she said "women have always been the primary victims in war."  Which necessarily implies that men suffer less.

You women card holders will back her no matter what she says or does.  I guess next you'll tell me there really was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that made up the Monica story.

[garbon]

Great. I can't wait to see all of the next 5 months of bizarro Marti outrage.

[Martinus]

You have to be pretty desperate to be offended to find it objectionable to notice that women often and as a matter of course suffer terribly as a result of war.

But that's not what she said.  She didn't just say that women suffer and suffer terribly as a result of war, she said "women have always been the primary victims in war."  Which necessarily implies that men suffer less.

You women card holders will back her no matter what she says or does.  I guess next you'll tell me there really was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that made up the Monica story.

Yeah it's really amazing to what lengths Berkut will go to defend an indefensible position.

[Berkut]

You have to have a pretty sever case of misogyny to draw that conclusion from her words.

I disagree. Saying that women have it worse because women lose their men (whereas men just lose their lives) is a pretty severe case of misandry.

Except she didn't say women "had it worse than men". What she said is completely uncontroversial when taken in context:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. "

She is not saying women have it worse than men (although it is interesting that you operate from the assumption that only men lose their lives in war, and that loss of life is the only way in which people can be victims, which is of course just completely untrue), she is saying that when there is war, women are always primary victims. Not the only victims, but rather that when some man is killed, he is not the only victim, others are *directly* impacted.

You have to assume such an incredible level of stupid to interpret her words to mean that some guy getting killed is NOT a victim. What is the point? Other than to appeal to your own sense of manufactured outrage?

Oh wait, now I see the point.

Sorry but this is a ridiculous attempt to white wash that quote.

Saying that "women are primary victims of war" is the same as saying "women have it worse than men" - otherwise the statement is pointless, when worded this way - this is really a binary thing, humanity is composed of two groups, men and women - if you are singling one group and saying it is a primary victim, you are naturally implying that members of that group have it worse than members of the other group.

No, you are not saying that at all, and I bet if you asked her she would laugh at how stupid it is to attempt to make her words into such a statement. But I am sure you know better than her what she meant.

She is calling out the fact that women in fact have and continue to be the direct victims of war. This is almost boring in its obviousness. Your objection is like someone claiming that black people only think their lives matter when they speak out against police shooting them.

The only way this is "obvious" is if you are one of those people who insist that the world is divided up into groups whose interests are always in opposition to one another, and hence any acknowledgement of one group must be seen as taking away from another. This is a childish, immature, and dangerous way to look at the world, and one that results in you being outraged when it is used against YOUR group, but one you are so happy to use against every other. In this case, against women.

There is a word for this when applied to women - misogyny.

[frunk]

Victims are not the only ones who suffer.

[Berkut]

When I say, for example "Valmy is the primary source of arguments in his marriage" - you'd have to be an idiot to read it as saying "both Valmy and his wife contribute equally to arguments in his marriage" - it would be read by anyone as saying that Valmy is worse.

Not even remotely comparable, since your "analogy" is about someone assigning blame, which of course is a different context entirely.

[Martinus]

Great. I can't wait to see all of the next 5 months of bizarro Marti outrage.

I am not really outraged about the quote - when derspiess originally posted it and the picture I simply commented with 

What outraged me is Berkut's (and to a lesser extent, Valmy's) ridiculous attempt to defend it as "this is not she meant" and "you have to be a misygone to interpret it this way".

[garbon]

Great. I can't wait to see all of the next 5 months of bizarro Marti outrage.

I am not really outraged about the quote - when derspiess originally posted it and the picture I simply commented with 

What outraged me is Berkut's (and to a lesser extent, Valmy's) ridiculous attempt to defend it as "this is not she meant" and "you have to be a misygone to interpret it this way".

Yeah okay...

[Valmy]

But that's not what she said.  She didn't just say that women suffer and suffer terribly as a result of war, she said "women have always been the primary victims in war."  Which necessarily implies that men suffer less.

Well they suffer but at least as actors and not simply as victims which carries its own stress. But anyway I was not even arguing that point but rather that just losing your male relatives is just the tip of the iceberg of how women are victimized by war. But you have to admit that back in the old days losing your male relatives was not exactly a death sentence but pretty serious.

You women card holders will back her no matter what she says or does.  I guess next you'll tell me there really was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that made up the Monica story.

Do you even read my posts or do you just make up some bullshit in your head and then respond to that?

[Berkut]

You have to be pretty desperate to be offended to find it objectionable to notice that women often and as a matter of course suffer terribly as a result of war.

But that's not what she said.  She didn't just say that women suffer and suffer terribly as a result of war, she said "women have always been the primary victims in war."  Which necessarily implies that men suffer less.

No, it doesn't necessarily imply that at all. It implies, if anything, that the suffering of women is often not acknowledged, and ought to be.

Suggesting that someone who is killed is not suffering is just plain idiotic. I know that is the point, the desperate need to find a quote that can be taken out of context to make a powerful woman look idiotic, but it actually just makes you look like a misogynist.

You women card holders will back her no matter what she says or does.  I guess next you'll tell me there really was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that made up the Monica story.

WTF are you talking about? That might be the worst strawman ever seen on Languish, and that is no small feat.

I am no Hillary supporter, and I don't much care for her overall. But it is blindingly obvious to me what her message was in the quote, and I refuse to play the game where you try to case everything someone you don't like says in the worst possible way, especially when it comes to manufacturing your outrage at some woman who (gasp!) is in a position of power and how they are going to use that position to push their fem-Nazi agenda.


"The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence. . "

The quote, by the way, is from a conference on domestic and political violence in San Salvador. A place where there are, literally, thousands of women living as the victims of war.

Look at the entire quote in the context she is speaking, and it is completely unremarkable. It takes some serious need for victimhood to read that and assume she is arguing that men who are killed in combat are not victims. What is funny is how the "men" who are so ready to take such offense are all so completely not likely to ever have to worry about being such victims themselves in any case.