Okay, so you think what you wrote should be read in a way that gives you the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough.

Hold on a mo. I did not retreat from the wider interpretation, despite it not being what I originally meant. I’m prepared to defend it; I merely asked you to clarify my burden of proof.

Not a moment is spent considering whether or not this “unstated” premise is actually a premise that Blackamazon believes in - even though it’s extremely doubtful that she believes it. So the benefit of the doubt that you (Daran) think should extend to what you wrote, you don’t extend to what Blackamazon wrote.

The premiss is implied by what she wrote. In rejecting the proposition that “we should support this war, expand it into Iran and Saudi Arabia, blow up the patriarchy everywhere possible”, she listed her objections through a serious of rhetorical questions:

FINALLY ENCOURAGE A WAR THAT HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN,HAD MANY OF THEM RAPED BY THE ” SAVIORS” AND TELL ME WHERE THAT HELPS CHOICE?

She could have said “hundreds of thousands of men and women”, but she didn’t. over 90% of the deaths in Iraq do not feature in her objections.

“Typical” feminists don’t get into these arguments with MRAs at all. I have no idea what your measurement of “typical” is, but I suspect it boils down to something like “those feminists who most offend, and thus attract the most attention from, MRAs.”

On the contrary. Feminists who engage with “MRAs” tend to deny, dismiss, or minimise”. When not engaging with “MRAs” they frequently ignore.

A typical feminists is anyone you agree is a feminist. (So it excludes McElroy, Young, etc.). I asked you a while back if you could identify any feminist who had blogged honestly about the targetting of men for slaughter in Iraq, and you admitted that you couldn’t. The challenge is still open, but I would exclude your own blogging since then.

In my [recent post on Creative Destruction], I gave examples of how feminists do each of the four behaviours I outlined - denial, dismissal, minimisation and ignoring. You say that feminists aren’t all the same? I say that, whatever other differences there may be in this respect they are the same. I’ve produced examples. You haven’t come up with a single counterexample.

I dont think that is a fair characterization. A fairly old development in feminist thinking/theory is the notion of ‘gender’ as a relationship between humans–both ‘men’ and ‘women.’ The change over last decade from university Women’s Studies Departments to departmetns of Gender and Sexuality was largely made to make exactly the point that feminism is about the negative impact of gender opression on society as a whole. I know that BPHMT is often derided, but that doesnt mean that most of us think that it isn’t true. Its just not ALWAYS the most relevant point.

curiousgyrl, I’ve replied to you here. It’s too long for a comment here, and I’d only be accused of hijacking the thread anyway.

I agree that there’s more to “the burden of war” in general than mortality though in the context of my comment the phrase should be construed as specifically referring to mortality.

Okay, so you think what you wrote should be read in a way that gives you the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. But later in the same post….

However, I think that BlackAmazon’s substantive point — which, if I haven’t misunderstood her, is that any “pro-woman” argument for invading Iraq has to somehow overcome the obvious harm to women of tens of thousands of female deaths and the inevitable rapes that are always part of war and occupation — is correct.

No argument from me on that, although I do reject the unstated premise that the harms to women or to “women and children” are the only harms we need to consider when evaluating whether war is a good thing.

Not a moment is spent considering whether or not this “unstated” premise is actually a premise that Blackamazon believes in - even though it’s extremely doubtful that she believes it. So the benefit of the doubt that you (Daran) think should extend to what you wrote, you don’t extend to what Blackamazon wrote.

…but feminists typically do view the harm solely in terms of its impact upon women, while denying, minimising, and ignoring the harm to men.

“Typical” feminists don’t get into these arguments with MRAs at all. I have no idea what your measurement of “typical” is, but I suspect it boils down to something like “those feminists who most offend, and thus attract the most attention from, MRAs.”

Because you see all feminists as the same, without actually knowing much about feminism, your criticisms tend to be hamhanded and offbase. For example: Black feminists - and in particular those who describe themselves as womanists, as Blackamazon does (comment #44) - have historically positioned themselves against separatist feminists over the question of how to think of men (among other issues, most importantly the issue of racism within the feminist movement). The idea that men are always the enemy, and never victims of oppression, is an idea that womanists have argued against — while still criticizing misogyny and sexism among men.

That’s fair enough, but feminists typically do view the harm solely in terms of its impact upon women, while denying, minimising, and ignoring the harm to men.

I dont think that is a fair characterization. A fairly old development in feminist thinking/theory is the notion of ‘gender’ as a relationship between humans–both ‘men’ and ‘women.’ The change over last decade from university Women’s Studies Departments to departmetns of Gender and Sexuality was largely made to make exactly the point that feminism is about the negative impact of gender opression on society as a whole. I know that BPHMT is often derided, but that doesnt mean that most of us think that it isn’t true. Its just not ALWAYS the most relevant point.

Is it too much to suggest that harm on the scale suggested by the Lancet study can never be viewed solely in terms of its impact on any specific demographic group? Clearly, women and children are harmed when their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons are dying, especially in a society in which support and protection hinge so much on patriarchal structures.

That’s fair enough, but feminists typically do view the harm solely in terms of its impact upon women, while denying, minimising, and ignoring the harm to men.

Daran, your argument doesn’t take account of people who have died since that survey stopped collecting data, in August 2004. Also, although I’m sure you’re aware that there’s more to “the burden of war” than mortality, you don’t say anything to indicate you know that in this comment.

I agree that there’s more to “the burden of war” in general than mortality though in the context of my comment the phrase should be construed as specifically referring to mortality. The point of the remark was to forstall the inevitable response: “it says here, that…”. I know what “it says here”. It’s a myth.

However, construing “the burden of war” more widely, what, specifically to you think is my burden of proof here? Do you deny that this is a claim “widely propagated by feminists”? Have feminists met their burden of proof in any substantive way, rather than simply denying, minimising, dismissing, or ignoring the proportion of the burden of war that falls upon men, while regurgitating in ever more exaggerated terms the exaggerations of other feminists?

I appreciate that you have began recently to acknowledge the male death toll in your own blogging, but you are only one feminist.

Nonetheless, you’re correct about mortality: the latest Lancet survey suggests that tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, more female Iraqis have died since the invasion than would have died if pre-invasion conditions continued.

I was not aware of the new data. If “hundreds of thousands” means 100,000 or more, then I had a 15X margin of error on the old data, and, as you point out, even on the new data, I am correct.

However, I think that BlackAmazon’s substantive point — which, if I haven’t misunderstood her, is that any “pro-woman” argument for invading Iraq has to somehow overcome the obvious harm to women of tens of thousands of female deaths and the inevitable rapes that are always part of war and occupation — is correct.

No argument from me on that, although I do reject the unstated premise that the harms to women or to “women and children” are the only harms we need to consider when evaluating whether war is a good thing.

Let me put this more politely than I suspect others will ;)….

You seem to be unaware of the entire brouhaha about this.

Read the brownfemipower link (and the gazillion comments) and/or the other links in the OP. Your point has been presented there in some detail.

That picture is what all the discussion is about? What’s the problem? She’s wearing a T-shirt, the same thing that approximately 1.265 zillion bloggers wear. It’s not low cut or scoop neck, it’s not tight, it doesn’t stop a foot above her belt, it doesn’t have a “look at me” color or pattern, and she doesn’t appear to me to be “posing”, as some would have it.

And having posed in my day for numerous group pictures, I can tell you she’s standing there because that’s where the photographer told her to stand. Since she’s the (by my eye) 3rd shortest person there, she’s in the front row near the center. No, I’m not naive, as an attractive young woman she’s going to stand out, and the photographer may well have had that in mind when he told people where to stand and to turn this way or that (and I well imagine that when an ex-POTUS has his picture taken in a group, a professional photographer is taking the picture). But to criticize this woman for the way she’s dressed or the way she stands seems ridiculous to me.

As far as the photoshopped picture goes, I don’t see what Amanda has to apologize for. The fact that she has used a product of extreme “patriarchy” to lampoon the less extreme attitudes of the critics of the young woman in the original photograph does not seem to me to demean “women of color” - for one thing, I would never have thought of Iranian women as “women of color” in the first place, and I’m not aware that anyone else does, either. That woman in that burhka could have skin lighter than mine (especially since it’s constantly protected from the sun). I don’t think that doing that makes fun of women in burkhas (sp?) - I don’t think anyone believes, especially on the basis of that picture, that women in burkhas are objects of derision.

The impression I got from that photoshopped picture was that it lampooned the people who objected to the blogger wearing the T-shirt. And it issues a warning as to what the kind of attitude that leads to criticizing a woman in a nondescript T-shirt can lead to. It reminds us that if she wore that T-shirt in the land where that burhka was worn, she would likely get publicly beaten in the street by whoever felt like doing it. And it reminds us that there are some people in America who would feel justified in restricting women’s clothing choices, or in doing things like breastfeeding in public (we are talking about breasts here).

Amanda didn’t “other” that woman in the burhka. The people who make her wear the damn thing did. Amanda is just bringing to our attention that critics of wearing that T-shirt are “othering” the woman involved, and to what that kind of “othering” of women in the U.S. is related to and can lead to. And I think it’s a valid point.

As a feminist in the U.S., Amanda has an advantage over the women in places like Afghanistan, Iran, and other such countries; she has a voice that she’s free to use and facilities to make it broadly heard that are far superior to what’s available to those women. She should use it - it’s supportable to argue that she is obligated to use it - and she did.

The study claims 650,000 deaths as a result of the war.

Nonetheless, you’re correct about mortality: the latest Lancet survey suggests that tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, more female Iraqis have died since the invasion than would have died if pre-invasion conditions continued.

However, I think that BlackAmazon’s substantive point — which, if I haven’t misunderstood her, is that any “pro-woman” argument for invading Iraq has to somehow overcome the obvious harm to women of tens of thousands of female deaths and the inevitable rapes that are always part of war and occupation — is correct.

Anyway; Blackamazon, could you document that hundreds of thousands of women have been killed in this war?

They haven’t been. The Lancet Survey’s estimated less than 100,000 civilian deaths. Less than one in 15 of them was female. See my analysis of their figures here. Although the sample is small, it is consistent with ICRC figures which show that 90% of war casualties are male. The claim, widely propagated by feminists, that the burden of war falls overwhelmingly on women is a myth.

Sure it does. Because it’s not just “anger driven bloviation.” It’s a realistic view of the inevitable power imbalances when the rapist is backed up by a victorious army and the woman is a member of the population occupied by that army.