removed some comments and blocked the commenter/ended their subscription. I want people to be able to debate, but conspiracy theories and denying atrocities, not to mention insulting other readers, isn't something I want here. Probably should have done this sooner; sorry about that.
Yes, the crisis in Gaza occurred to me as well - the news reports about 30,000 fatalities so far always emphasize women and children. As if to say, “well, it’s war, men are expendable”.
The reason for that is "men" are either combatants or potential combatants, so killing them is what war is about. Traditionally, women and children are not combatants (though an increasing number of women are choosing or drafted to become combatants), so it points out the hypocrisy of claiming you're targeting a specific enemy when you're committing wholesale slaughter of people who aren't fighting back.
In this case, though, the target is supposedly Hamas, and Netanyahu's forces aren't discriminating between them and ANY Palestinian, nor anybody trying to aid noncombatants.
::nods:: Had to sleep on this one (thanks for Alternate Side of the Street Parking and not enough garages, Jersey City!), because SOMETHING about it didn't sit right, but I couldn't articulate it at the time.
Now that I re-read it I see what you mean—it's the argument that you don't spare the male noncombatants because they COULD become combatants, nor the male children because they COULD grow up to be combatants, nor the mothers or daughters because they COULD breed more combatants!
That's how you justify genocide—never mind that by acting in this way you guarantee the NEXT generation of combatants. Somehow, though, nobody ever considers that until the next generation pops up with blood in their eye.... 😢
Another thought I had while reading your article is of a book I am reading (listening to through Libby, actually) where the main character is a female private detective. This is my second read of the series; as I got into the books I was impressed at such an intense, strong female character - exacting righteous consequences on some truly horrible characters of any gender. But, she has no emotions about any of it other than fury at what the other characters - criminals - have done. Which begs the question, is that what a “strong character” of any gender looks like - emotionless and largely unaffected about the consequences of their actions, however justified those actions may be? What would it take for a male or female character to be considered strong/principled, while also acknowledging the gray areas of humanity?
(Strong female characters also rarely have children. Male characters exacting justice might have kids but they’re being cared for by…wives, ex-wives, their own mothers or sisters 🙄.)
It is (I was originally just going to make a comment about Mooks, so I looked that up and it lined to the second piece, and thought, "that's just what Noah was writing about").
It occurs to me that one of the strengths of the TVTropes style is that it is unlikely to prompt a response of, "you just don't like genre X." Because it's so clearly by and for fans it has a tone of, "you can think this is a problem or not, but these are the patterns."
The converse of that is that it isn't connect to any broader cultural critique.
Its literal self devaluation . Because its men writing, directing, and starring in these movies that devalue men. This fits in with your earlier article on the "crisis of masculinity" where maintaining the 'crisis' is the POINT. Male on male Violence is a kind of simplistic momentary purge of the conflict
I completely agree with that. But perhaps it's part of maintaining the crisis. I can't quite get to exactly what I'm trying to say. Perhaps devaluation is the wrong framing. It has something to do with the objects of the violence being worthy adversaries on some level. It's not strong men against weak men, it's strong men against other strong men who are merely appositional. Lol. Clearly my thoughts are unformed on this. I'm usually better at expressing when I'm trying to say.
Most violence, including murder, is committed by men and perpetuated on other men. That's a demonstrable truth.
In war, men are typically fighting other men. Removing men has the byproduct of removing protection from women and children, who have always been collateral damage in the wars between men. (I'm not familiar with the work of the woman you quoted, but she should have at least become familiar with rudimentary facts about the dynamics of war, of which there have been many, before inventing nonsense thoughts.) The collateral damage for women, apart from death, is too often bearing the children of the enemy. That's male revenge and subjugation, built into and normalized as part of war.
Violence against women within everyday life, as opposed to the relentless and ordinary violence between men, is distinct and particular, because the violence is directed at women for being women.
I think a lot of violence against men is directed at men for being men. Violence is often gendered, and thinking through why that is and how that's done is important for reducing or eliminating violence against everyone.
I understand what you're saying, but very few men are misanthropes. Men don't live with the perpetual threat of sexual violence. Men don't typically feel a sense of ownership over each other. Your equivalency argument doesn't hold up to reality.
I think you’re missing the way marginalized men are treated and perceived. How do white men think about Black men in our culture? Fox is demonstrating being immigrant men 24 7 right now.
Indeed, that does happen. Those power dynamics between men are not the same as directed at women. False equivalency.
There is a whole other dynamic when men marginalize sub groups of men.
Trump, for example, as with everything he says, is an extreme reactionary when it comes to men who are not white and not rich. He's a despicable person. This isn't the norm for violence amongst men, however, which is often within their own circles. (Although the violence toward black men in America by white men is a whole thing in itself.)
So, violence and prejudice directed at women are also very frequently racialized as well.
The prison system is a massive institution which targets Black men, primarily. There are literal genocides directed primarily against marginalized men. Workplace deaths are suffered by men in great disproportion, because targeting poor men is a thing.
You keep saying its a "false equivalency." I didn't say it was equivalent. The whole point with gendered violence is that it is distributed and directed *differently* by gender. I think it's important to analyze and think about those differences, because they enable violence against everyone.
Maybe that's why I was not a great fan of action plots. There could be the odd film that might have more of a point. Liberty Valence, High Noon, Hombre, The Searchers et al. (Hey I'm from the generation where out of 4 movies were westerns). The car chase in Bullitt was fabulous and good enough I never needed to see another. But none of these are actually strong men movies, are they? No I don't think I liked the genre and couldn't even finish watching Bruce Willis hiding out wherever he was hiding out in some big building that I can't even remember the name of.
that's all very incorrect. the death tolls are from Gaza sources which have long been accurate and trusted by virtually every international humanitarian organization. the people denying them are in bad faith, and are denying atrocities. it's really bad; please do not do that.
Killing tens of thousands of civilians and childrne is not defending yourself from terrorists, any more than our destruction of Iraq was about defending ourselves from terrorists. murdering innocent people in great numbers is not a defensive war.
The lies from the Gaza "sources" have continued; like the bombing of a hospital by Israel that DID NOT HAPPEN! Why do we still believe their other lies???? No proof of the numbers of people who have been declared to be killed.
no "genocide scholars" have said that Israel is committing genocide...you are so wrong. Genocide has happened in other places; including Africa and China; but no one cares...could it be a JEWISH thing??? The acts against the innocent people of Israel on 10/7 were truly genocidal and horrific...It seems so easy to forget that; by bigots. The Israelis are many different races and want to live in peace...Palestinians and other Arab people want Israelis to die. THAT is true genocide.
Also, I'm Jewish, so I don't really appreciate you suggesting I'm some sort of genocidal antisemite or bigot. and of course Palestinians and Arabs are a quite diverse group, in terms of religion, ethnic background, and in their attitudes towards Israel.
You don't seem to be reading my links at all there. I'd really suggest you do that before commenting further.
Yeah, it's deliberate. The Israeli leaders have literally and unambiguously started the aim, repeatedly, and the body count is evidence of their success.
The numbers are artificially LOW.
Palestinians don't have the means to go through all of the rumble to find every body. The real numbers will only come later. Or never, many thousands might never be counted.
The IDF just fired on and murdered starving people.
There are tens of thousands dead. Gaza is leveled; people are starving while Israel blocks food shipments. You are saying no Palestinians have died because you don’t want to care if they die.
Again, I’d beg you to read through the numerous links. And to stop apologizing for horrific atrocities. It’s possible to condemn the hamas attacks without cheering on Israeli atrocities.
removed some comments and blocked the commenter/ended their subscription. I want people to be able to debate, but conspiracy theories and denying atrocities, not to mention insulting other readers, isn't something I want here. Probably should have done this sooner; sorry about that.
I’m not sure it’s a purge of the conflict; more like an example of it?
Yes, the crisis in Gaza occurred to me as well - the news reports about 30,000 fatalities so far always emphasize women and children. As if to say, “well, it’s war, men are expendable”.
The reason for that is "men" are either combatants or potential combatants, so killing them is what war is about. Traditionally, women and children are not combatants (though an increasing number of women are choosing or drafted to become combatants), so it points out the hypocrisy of claiming you're targeting a specific enemy when you're committing wholesale slaughter of people who aren't fighting back.
In this case, though, the target is supposedly Hamas, and Netanyahu's forces aren't discriminating between them and ANY Palestinian, nor anybody trying to aid noncombatants.
The idea that all men are “potential” combatants is how genocide is generally justified.
::nods:: Had to sleep on this one (thanks for Alternate Side of the Street Parking and not enough garages, Jersey City!), because SOMETHING about it didn't sit right, but I couldn't articulate it at the time.
Now that I re-read it I see what you mean—it's the argument that you don't spare the male noncombatants because they COULD become combatants, nor the male children because they COULD grow up to be combatants, nor the mothers or daughters because they COULD breed more combatants!
That's how you justify genocide—never mind that by acting in this way you guarantee the NEXT generation of combatants. Somehow, though, nobody ever considers that until the next generation pops up with blood in their eye.... 😢
Another thought I had while reading your article is of a book I am reading (listening to through Libby, actually) where the main character is a female private detective. This is my second read of the series; as I got into the books I was impressed at such an intense, strong female character - exacting righteous consequences on some truly horrible characters of any gender. But, she has no emotions about any of it other than fury at what the other characters - criminals - have done. Which begs the question, is that what a “strong character” of any gender looks like - emotionless and largely unaffected about the consequences of their actions, however justified those actions may be? What would it take for a male or female character to be considered strong/principled, while also acknowledging the gray areas of humanity?
(Strong female characters also rarely have children. Male characters exacting justice might have kids but they’re being cared for by…wives, ex-wives, their own mothers or sisters 🙄.)
Yeah, there’s a tendency to equate strength with stoicism or lack of affect which is pretty poisonous
A good essay; I appreciate it, and I note that patterns you're commenting on are common enough that they covered on TVTropes
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mooks
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender
hah! I had not seen that, but it's a good write up.
It is (I was originally just going to make a comment about Mooks, so I looked that up and it lined to the second piece, and thought, "that's just what Noah was writing about").
It occurs to me that one of the strengths of the TVTropes style is that it is unlikely to prompt a response of, "you just don't like genre X." Because it's so clearly by and for fans it has a tone of, "you can think this is a problem or not, but these are the patterns."
The converse of that is that it isn't connect to any broader cultural critique.
Its literal self devaluation . Because its men writing, directing, and starring in these movies that devalue men. This fits in with your earlier article on the "crisis of masculinity" where maintaining the 'crisis' is the POINT. Male on male Violence is a kind of simplistic momentary purge of the conflict
I think that often it’s not exactly self devaluation…I think men often see themselves as different from the men targeted?
I completely agree with that. But perhaps it's part of maintaining the crisis. I can't quite get to exactly what I'm trying to say. Perhaps devaluation is the wrong framing. It has something to do with the objects of the violence being worthy adversaries on some level. It's not strong men against weak men, it's strong men against other strong men who are merely appositional. Lol. Clearly my thoughts are unformed on this. I'm usually better at expressing when I'm trying to say.
Most violence, including murder, is committed by men and perpetuated on other men. That's a demonstrable truth.
In war, men are typically fighting other men. Removing men has the byproduct of removing protection from women and children, who have always been collateral damage in the wars between men. (I'm not familiar with the work of the woman you quoted, but she should have at least become familiar with rudimentary facts about the dynamics of war, of which there have been many, before inventing nonsense thoughts.) The collateral damage for women, apart from death, is too often bearing the children of the enemy. That's male revenge and subjugation, built into and normalized as part of war.
Violence against women within everyday life, as opposed to the relentless and ordinary violence between men, is distinct and particular, because the violence is directed at women for being women.
I think a lot of violence against men is directed at men for being men. Violence is often gendered, and thinking through why that is and how that's done is important for reducing or eliminating violence against everyone.
I understand what you're saying, but very few men are misanthropes. Men don't live with the perpetual threat of sexual violence. Men don't typically feel a sense of ownership over each other. Your equivalency argument doesn't hold up to reality.
I think you’re missing the way marginalized men are treated and perceived. How do white men think about Black men in our culture? Fox is demonstrating being immigrant men 24 7 right now.
Demonizng, ffs
Indeed, that does happen. Those power dynamics between men are not the same as directed at women. False equivalency.
There is a whole other dynamic when men marginalize sub groups of men.
Trump, for example, as with everything he says, is an extreme reactionary when it comes to men who are not white and not rich. He's a despicable person. This isn't the norm for violence amongst men, however, which is often within their own circles. (Although the violence toward black men in America by white men is a whole thing in itself.)
So, violence and prejudice directed at women are also very frequently racialized as well.
The prison system is a massive institution which targets Black men, primarily. There are literal genocides directed primarily against marginalized men. Workplace deaths are suffered by men in great disproportion, because targeting poor men is a thing.
You keep saying its a "false equivalency." I didn't say it was equivalent. The whole point with gendered violence is that it is distributed and directed *differently* by gender. I think it's important to analyze and think about those differences, because they enable violence against everyone.
Maybe that's why I was not a great fan of action plots. There could be the odd film that might have more of a point. Liberty Valence, High Noon, Hombre, The Searchers et al. (Hey I'm from the generation where out of 4 movies were westerns). The car chase in Bullitt was fabulous and good enough I never needed to see another. But none of these are actually strong men movies, are they? No I don't think I liked the genre and couldn't even finish watching Bruce Willis hiding out wherever he was hiding out in some big building that I can't even remember the name of.
that's all very incorrect. the death tolls are from Gaza sources which have long been accurate and trusted by virtually every international humanitarian organization. the people denying them are in bad faith, and are denying atrocities. it's really bad; please do not do that.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033
Biden himself has apologized for questioning the totals and admitted that doing so was wrong.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/26/news/biden-apologized-to-muslim-american-leaders-for-questioning-death-toll-from-hamas-linked-org-report/
many genocide scholars have said that israel is committing genocide, and the ICJ said that it is plausible to say that what is happening is a genocide. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/gaza-icj-ruling-offers-hope-protection-civilians-enduring-apocalyptic
Killing tens of thousands of civilians and childrne is not defending yourself from terrorists, any more than our destruction of Iraq was about defending ourselves from terrorists. murdering innocent people in great numbers is not a defensive war.
The lies from the Gaza "sources" have continued; like the bombing of a hospital by Israel that DID NOT HAPPEN! Why do we still believe their other lies???? No proof of the numbers of people who have been declared to be killed.
no "genocide scholars" have said that Israel is committing genocide...you are so wrong. Genocide has happened in other places; including Africa and China; but no one cares...could it be a JEWISH thing??? The acts against the innocent people of Israel on 10/7 were truly genocidal and horrific...It seems so easy to forget that; by bigots. The Israelis are many different races and want to live in peace...Palestinians and other Arab people want Israelis to die. THAT is true genocide.
many genocide scholars have characterized what's happening in Israel as genocide or potentially genocide.
https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/statement-of-scholars-7-october/
Israel has destroyed numerous hospitals, as you'd expect since the entirety of Gaza is now a ruin. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-hospitals-be55b16dd18e55be1b8ad395163ca19b
Also, I'm Jewish, so I don't really appreciate you suggesting I'm some sort of genocidal antisemite or bigot. and of course Palestinians and Arabs are a quite diverse group, in terms of religion, ethnic background, and in their attitudes towards Israel.
You don't seem to be reading my links at all there. I'd really suggest you do that before commenting further.
Yeah, it's deliberate. The Israeli leaders have literally and unambiguously started the aim, repeatedly, and the body count is evidence of their success.
The numbers are artificially LOW.
Palestinians don't have the means to go through all of the rumble to find every body. The real numbers will only come later. Or never, many thousands might never be counted.
The IDF just fired on and murdered starving people.
There are tens of thousands dead. Gaza is leveled; people are starving while Israel blocks food shipments. You are saying no Palestinians have died because you don’t want to care if they die.
Again, I’d beg you to read through the numerous links. And to stop apologizing for horrific atrocities. It’s possible to condemn the hamas attacks without cheering on Israeli atrocities.
An excuse for what, exactly? Where is the excavation equipment? Oh, that's right, they only have their bare hands these days.
An excuse for under counting the dead. Jeez. 🤦♀️