"Women have always been the primary victims of war."?
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
- Hillary Clinton.
Do you agree?
- ?Lv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes, because they were made dependent upon men for their survival. It didn't eradicate women, it was a great inconvenience. In most democratic countries, it won't happen. Women are more than capable.
It was their war. They sent their young men. Now they cry. Sorry for the young men being ruled by the old sexist war mongers.
- 7 years ago
No, Men loss their lives. Women still keep theirs. Men worry about their wives cheating, we loss our sons if not our lives or our friends. We could even loose our futures if there is a draft. Even when women had to depend on a man if the husband died the government would pay her money to support her. They still do. Men are the victims, women only suffer part of it.
What an idiotic statement. The men ( who were socially maniuplated to go off and get killed defending the women ) would be the primary victims.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
Human beings are hardwired to favor women over men. Females are the limiting factor of reproduction because one man can impregnate many females, but it doesn't work the other way around. A society can survive the loss of most of it's men and still go on. It could not withstand the loss of most of it's women. Therefore male suffering is devalued by both men and women to the extent that even our deaths are ignored in favor of sympathizing with women losing the person paying all their bills. There are some nasty aspects of human nature. Men have their dark side, and so do women. This is woman's dark side: the inability to empathize with the suffering of males. That's why 'patriarchy' was a system designed to protect and provide for women, where men died by the millions in wars, or died sinking with the ship while women sailed off, or paid all her bills and worked himself to an early grave to give her a comfortable life, and then women rebelled and called this slavery. No matter what men give women, women will demand more, and not only that, but will EXPECT it, and be entirely ungrateful. Your favor to them turns into their favor for you. Think of alimony. She stays home to raise the kid, so you sacrifice your time and money to pay for this. You work 60 hours a week so that she can care for the kids. Then when she divorces you, you have to pay her again, because supposedly she sacrificed her earning potential. The truth is that YOU sacrificed YOUR earning potential in order to allow her the ability to stay with the children. But again, your favor to her is her favor to you, and now you will be made to pay again for being so stupid.
Men really need to learn and stop slaving for women. They are big girls and can take care of themselves. Marriage is outdated and lifetime alimony is no different than slavery. A man paying alimony can never retire, and will die working. Ahhhh....but women are victims of sexism evil male patriarchy. It is the biggest crock of SH*T in the world. You could never get away with saying the hateful things about other groups that women say about men. In college I was taught men were responsible for 90% of the worlds problems. That wasn't even in a women's studies course, it was a professor of a totally different subject. Imagine if your math professor told you the Jews were responsible for 90% of the worlds problems?
Women are a very hateful group in modern society, and we are all paying taxes to support this hate movement being taught in our schools. It is sickening. But as always, men do not matter. If you complain about injustice you are considered weak. If you get angry about injustice you are considered hateful. Those are men's two options: Be derided and degraded for weakness, or be hated and feared because of your anger. There is no way to win, and that's what I call male privilege.
- hippenLv 44 years ago
So, why do no longer females ease their damaging burden and alter into canon fodder rather of adult men? Then they might do the dieing and adult men can do the "sufferer" ingredient. Hillary could have my place on the battleline interior the subsequent conflict and that i will gladly stay domicile and be a sufferer lol.
- 5 years ago
nope. It's bs. that would make men the primary victims of violent rape because the lives of their daughters and wives are being taken away from them
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, I disagree. Men in war lose their lives... I would think that makes them the primary victims
- 6 years ago
Without qualifying that statement with any supporting argument this statement is useless. Otherwise we are just putting words into someones mouth. On the face of it, this statement sounds pretty ignorant.
- Anonymous6 years ago
Out the window goes Hilary's credibility
- D VLv 51 decade ago
It’s worth contrasting the extensive mainstream, human rights, and of course feminist media coverage of a few hundred to a few thousand women killed, with the near complete media blackout on the catastrophic targeted slaughter of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men in Iraq. Here are the stark facts of the matter:
* According to the Iraq Body Count, There have been between 96,803 and 105,553 recorded civilian deaths during the conflict up to the time of writing. There are likely to have been many, many, more unrecorded deaths, not to mention countless numbers of injured.
* Where the sex of the victim is known, 89% of the fatalities are male.
* Different attack methods result in different gender ratios. In general, the more inherently indiscrimate the attack mode, i.e., the less control the attacker has over the choice of victim, the less one-side the gender ratio, so for example, morter attacks and pure airstrikes kill males 56% and 54% of the time respectively.
* Contrariwise, Where the attack mode gives the attacker a high degree of control over the choice of victim, the gender ratios are large. For example 91% of the victims of small arms fire are male.
* In kidnap-executions, where the attacker has total control over the choice of victim, 95% of victims are male.
* Men are particularly targeted for torture. In those kidnap-executions where there is evidence of torture, 98% of victims are male.
These are not merely the unsubstantiated claims of an activist. These figures came from solid peer-reviewed research. The last figure is truly astounding. If there was ever a form of violence that qualified as gender-based – the targeted abduction, torture and murder of men in Iraq is it. Yet they are almost completely erased from the gender discourse.
The result of this inordinate focus upon female suffering, combined with the erasure of male victimization, is that a wholly false picture is painted of how violence does operate within these conflict-torn communities. That false picture in turn is used to justify the inordinate focus upon female victimisation.
See link for sources and discussion.