In 1998 Hillary Clinton gave a speech in El Salvador in her role as first lady. It has not become legend as one the most blatant blue pill narrative ever told. What followed was a great example of how the narratives of the left spread through the institutions until lie become truth and narrative become sacrosanct fact.
It occurred on November 17, 1998 Clinton at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador. The country had just re-emerged from bloody civil war. Clinton’s was speaking to the effect the war had had on women and children. Early in the speech the following was said:
“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.”
Male suffering in war
Just in case you missed it “Women have always been the primary victims of war“. I fully understand that I don’t need to explain this to you but I will anyway. The former USSR lost 27 million people in WW2, 14% of its population. The ratio of men to women (aged 20-29) was 0.96 pre war but only 0.70 post war. In conflict related deaths, men have a 1.3 to 10 times higher likelihood of death. In the war in Iraq, 97.68% of the US soldiers killed were male. Even in the iron age, it was all young men that died in war as a recent archeological dig site in Denmark confirmed (as if we needed proof). A study of Kosovo (Spiegel and Salama 2000) found “… compared sex-specific rates within the age strata and found that men and women aged 0–14 years had a similar mortality rate from war-related trauma, whereas men of military age (15–49 years) and men 50 years and older were 10.8 (2.7–42·2) and 9.6 (2.4–37.6) times more likely to die of war-related trauma than were women in their respective age-groups.”
Statistics aside, we know that in war the men of fighting age are exterminated before then can become soldiers, as happened in Srebrenica. We know that many countries refuse to acknowledge single males as refuges, as happened in Jordan after the recent Syrian crisis. During the fall of Berlin in WW2, men of fighting age were killed by their own SS for failing to volunteer to fight the Reds.
A deeper analysis shows that the only substance that any claim that men are not the most numerous victims of war is the women suffer after war. Clinton hints at this claim when she mentions “women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”. A comprehensive study in 2009 looked into this claim of women suffering more after war and found the following: “there are practically no global data available that allowed us to investigate conflict mortality disaggregated by gender”. So where was Clinton getting her facts from in 1998? Even if we could conclude that women suffer most after war, it doesn’t explain Clinton’s use of the phrase “Primary victims of war”.
One is staggered that the notion that war has a lesser effect on the gender that is;
- Conscripted away from their families and lives;
- Marched under pain of death towards hell on earth where bullets, bombs, disease, malnutrition and court martial await;
- Lined up in rows for enemy machine guns to cut down like tall grass;
- Sat behind a machine gun and ordered to kill as many men as possible;
- Captured and forced to endure the starvation, rape and torture that often happens in war prisons; and
- Returned home to their families with missing limbs and riddled with PTSD.
The United Nation Security Council piles on
But once a Global Elite like Clinton had started the trend, the rest piled on. 2 years later the UNSC adopted a resolution stating “civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict.” and “Expressing concern that women and children accounted for the majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict, the Council called on all parties to armed conflict to protect women and girls from gender-based violence.” Don’t bother looking for the part where the Council calls upon all parties to protect boys from gender-based violence, it doesn’t exist. But this resolution, and the language it uses, will exist forever.
So let me give some recent context to what this type of thinking leads to. Ask yourself this question. What was the really bad thing Boko Haram did in 2014? If you don’t remember, these pictures might help.
If you answered “Oh that’s right, they kidnapped 276 school girls on 15 April 2014. It was all over the news for weeks and every virtue signalling celeb was doing what Michelle Obama did in that picture”, you’d be wrong. They did kidnap the girls, which is terrible, but what you didn’t hear about was this. Boko Haram also kidnapped as many as 10,000 boys and forced them to kill (including beheadings). Furthermore, on 25 February Boko Haram raided a different school and as many as 59 boys, were shot, had their throats slit and even burned alive. Why no girls? They were let go and told “to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy“. They only changed their tactic to kidnapping girls after they failed to achieve global attention for mass murder. So that particular raid didn’t get the celebs upset. Why? It was just boys that died. Only males that were kidnapped. No empathy required for men.
This is the danger of using the blue pill language that feminists use today. Things like #killallmen, #believeallwomen, #drinkmenstears demunanise half the population. Lines like Andrea Dworkins “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” and “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” by Catherine Comins change the culture so that when men die or are kidnapped and forced to kill others just to stay alive, we don’t care anymore.