Sunday, June 22, 2008

Afghanistan

Number of British troops in Afghanistan = 8,000
Approximate number who are men = 6400
Approximate number who are women = 1600
Ratio of male to female troops: 4:1
Ratio of male troops to female troops killed so far: 150:1

This week 4 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. One of them happened to be a woman, the first British woman killed there in this conflict (compared to 150 men). All four deaths are sad and to be mourned. But what is truly sickening is the manner in which the media have covered this. Predictably, all we've heard about is the woman killed. The three men have been allowed to remain face-less casualties, in fact, they have typically not even been referred to as men, but as soldiers. A typical way that this is reported is: A woman was killed in Afghanistan this week, along with three other soldiers. i.e. whenever men are the victims, their sex isn't mentioned, when women are, its highlighted.

I did a Google news search on 'British soldiers killed Afghanistan' and the first 8 stories all basically exclusively focus on the woman. The first 8 headlines:

War in Afghanistan: 'She was a truly special person who died a hero'
Bryant was on secret mission in Afghanistan
Right or wrong, we must let mothers go to war
A woman’s choice
Double standards on the frontline
Wife 'died a hero' in Afghanistan
'I am devastated beyond words - but so incredibly proud of her'
Family's tears for Sarah – daughter, wife and soldier

Its not until the 9th headline that we hear any mention of the men at all. And then the 10th link tells us that: "In addition to Cpl Sarah Bryant, 26, of the Intelligence Corps, three special forces soldiers were killed in the latest attack."

"In addition", its almost like an after-thought isn't it?

Nevermind, eh? They were only men.

5 comments:

ex jar head said...

The next time some chick complains about equal pay nonsense you can ask her how many women have been killed in Afghan and other such dangerous work compared to men. You will not get a rational answer of course but it's always fun to watch them endlessly blabber their way around reality.

Peregrine John said...

Kudos to the Guardian for questioning the whole hubbub.

Anonymous said...

Let me figure this out.

We have 1600 women in Afghanistan, and they are doing exactly the same job as the men, facing exactly the same dangers, and displaying equal bravery, as we are assured time and again. And yet while men are regularly killed, it has taken all this time before just one female has shared the same fate.

The only explanation that makes any sense is that women have to be all-but immune to bullets and bombs, due to some unknown faculty or power that is totally absent from men, who die quite easily when you shoot them or blow them up.

So whatever this magical female immunity is, should we not be exploiting it to the full by ensuring that only women serve in war zones? At the same time, should we not be researching this power to discover where it comes from and how it works? And why the unfortunate Bryant was apparently the only female soldier in Afghanistan who didn't have it, or lost it at the critical moment?

For heavens sake, we have the secret of military invincibility right there in our hands - or rather in the hands of our invincible women - and we are dithering about like imbeciles, wasting our time sending useless and vulnerable men out there to try to do the job? What are we thinking of? Bring all those weak and feeble men home, replace them with power-enriched women, and watch them clean out the Taliban in next to no time and with a minimum of casualties.

Paul Parmenter

tba said...

Bravo, Paul Parameter. Braveo.

tba said...

Oops. I meant Paul Parmenter.

The hypocrisy in the reporting of deaths is so OBVIOUS that any feminists who professes to not see the double standard is a lying hag.