all 3 comments

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what is the specific context for this? if we are referring to war casualties, here is maya mikdashi's take on it.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

" I understand the impetus behind the counting of children and female casualties. The killing of innocents in Gaza by Israel’s war machine is a crime. But Palestinian men are victims of Israeli state terrorism too. Let’s not repeat the logic of the war on terror, where only children and women can be victims but men (including boys over 15, sometimes 13) are always suspects and thus somehow they share in the blame of their own death. This is the gendering of the War on Terror: our men and boys are inherently dangerous and are merely the potential for violence encased in human flesh.

Furthermore, every woman who lives and loves and loses and struggles within Israel’s military occupation and siege is a revolutionary. You do not have to pick up a gun in Gaza to be a revolutionary or an “enemy” of Israel. You just have to be alive and to insist on living. After all, isn’t that point of settler colonialism?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The reason I ask is because a lot of MRAs and concern trolls dislike the term, and concern trolls argue that it promotes women as weaker, though they will deny things like "patriarchy."