Gendercide: Men More Likely than Women to be Targeted in War

Some people, as we are too well aware, insist that women are the primary victims of war. And yet that picture is shot full of holes, busting out everywhere you look. Witness the following citation from an article published in the highly reputable New England Journal of Medicine. The subject is civilian deaths in the Iraq war, and the highlightings are my own:

"Among victims of known sex — that is, those identified as male or female, regardless of age — the proportion of female civilians killed varied according to the weapon used, as did the proportion of children killed among victims of known age. Because the media may tend to specifically identify female and young victims more readily than male adults among the dead, which could inflate our findings for the percentages of female civilians and children killed, these findings should not be considered absolute proportions; they are, however, relatively robust indicators of the varying demographic characteristics of civilians killed by different weapons. Female Iraqis and Iraqi children constituted the highest proportions of civilian victims when the methods of violence involved indiscriminate weapons fired from a distance: air attacks and mortars. That air attacks, whether involving bombs or missiles, killed relatively high proportions of female civilians and children is additional evidence in support of the argument that these weapons, like mortars, should not be directed at civilian areas because of their indiscriminate nature.
By contrast, the methods that resulted in the highest proportions of male civilians among victims of known sex were the relatively close-quarter, precise methods of gunfire (91% male civilians), execution (95% male civilians), and execution with torture (97% male civilians). Execution with torture, the most intimate, brutal method of killing, was used the most selectively against male (rather than female) civilians and against adults (rather than children). By nature, execution is precise and deliberate — the highly controlled, usually planned killing of a captured person. The character of this form of killing, combined with our findings that a great many civilians were killed by execution, in many events, with strong selection according to the sex and age of potential victims, supports the assessment that executions have been applied systematically and strategically to civilians in Iraq."

The full article is available from the following link:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0807240

A PDF version is available here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/360/16/15850.pdf

So, did you catch that? It says that female civilians are killed mainly by indiscriminate "dumb" weapons such as bombs and artillery, but when the killers are up close and able to choose their victims, they are far more likely to kill men—and overwhelmingly more likely to torture them!

To put this another way: the "weaponistas" in Iraq who kill or torture civilians in war would much rather NOT kill or torture female civilians.

Looking at the broader picture, in the Iraq war overall, male civilian deaths appear to outnumber female civilian deaths by at least 4 to 1. The following report, compiled from the years 2003-2005, bears witness to this:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/pdf/
a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

Yes, I know. Some she-ass is going to pipe up and remind us that it's mainly men who are doing this killing. But in conclusion: information of the kind shared here should be widely pointed out to the general public, because it chips away at the feminist idea that women are uniquely oppressed and violated in the world. 

In other words, it shoots holes in the feminist version of reality, and that's the main thing we need to be doing.

This is not to lament what is happening to men, but to undermine feminism by undermining the ideological paradigm it is built upon. Hence, the present blog post falls within the mandate of strict anti-feminism.