Do we care about those who suffer, when we can define the person they suffer from as part of the same group?
All the stats you cite having to do with injury or death sustained by men have a root cause in general: other men.
I often come across the kind of thinking that says that we should not care about men who are harmed by other men. It is a direct result of social thinking and divisive politics that has arisen since the 1970s. People don’t say so, but they imply that only when a man is harmed by a woman should we care .. but those same people will often scoff at the very idea that a man can be harmed by a woman.
There are people doing the same at the moment in the USA with black people. They point out that most black people are killed by black people and act as though it therefore is not a problem. When the IRA was busy killing people in Northern Ireland, it started to be common for people to say that those Irish murderers were only killing other Irish people, so it didn’t matter (guess why the IRA started bombing in England!).
Does it matter if most short people are burgled by other short people? Should we just shrug that off as a “short people’s problem?” When girls were identified as doing less well in schools (40 years ago), should society have just thought “well, most teachers are female, so we should not concern ourselves about females doing less well at school?” When a white woman is raped by a white man, should we point out that she was raped by one of her own skin colour, so should not expect our sympathy?
To anyone concerned about people in general, without worrying over which religion, race, colour sex, age, etc. they are, it is obvious that a healthy society will care about everyone in that society equally and without prejudice.
What is relevant is why some people are worse off and why they are not getting any notice or attention. Too many fall into the prevailing social narrative, promulgated by feminism: only women matter. Worse than that, women only matter when it can be shown to be men who caused them distress.
If you don’t care about these things, that’s fine and understandable. I wish you did but we can’t all care about everything in life, there isn’t time. But if you are going to spend time questioning someone, be honest enough to care about the facts, or understanding the motivations. Invest time doing some independent research, don’t just waste time trying to justify why men are second-class citizens, based on some indoctrination that you can't be bother to question.
In days when ‘Fake News’ is in the (fake?) news, it makes sense to check sources, not just deny them.
Our preconceptions might have been fixed by fakery. When what we believe is challenged, it makes more sense to check it than deny the alternate view.
Your sources are beyond suspect. But let’s pretend for a moment that they’re credible and reliable.
No, let’s not pretend. Let’s not assume we know when we haven’t checked. Let’s look up the data ourselves. That is why I won’t provide any more sources in this post: readers who can be bothered can easily find the data from their own government statistics, using a standard search engine and can even verify much of it from independant research.
The sources I quoted in my post that are so suspect to this responder? There were three:
- I linked to an article that discusses the mass murders by Boko Harem that feminists (like Hilary Clinton, for example) deliberately ignored for years. Only when a relatively few girls were kidnapped did feminists take notice. The article links to news sources, a major charity, and United Nations data including UNICEF and UNESCO.
- I linked to a feminist site (easy to find many more) complaining about manspreading, as “an Important Feminist Issue.”
- I linked to a newspaper website reporting on the feminist police chief who has decided to classify misogyny as a hate crime. The report gives all the names and details necessary to look up the official statement from Nottinghamshire police.
Are my sources in question?
Or is it the person questioning my sources who is in question? What might be their motivation for questioning such detailed and verifiable sources?
Putting words in someone’s mouth might make you feel clever but it does nothing for your own credibility.
Note the sexism rooted in the question:
So, how is it again that female feminists are a root cause of injury and death to men?
I have never blamed female feminists alone. If it matters to you, feminism is a Marxist/Collectivist ideology that has male and female proponents. While the root of the ideology was formulated by men, most of feminism has been codified by women. Most of the implementations, however, have been put in place by men.
Sexists – and especially feminists – will try splitting society up by what sex we are, and will encourage us to pit ourselves against the other sex (all the while paradoxically saying things like ‘gender is just a social construct’). A healthy society does not do this: it recognises differences and allows for them while encouraging everyone to work together for the common good.
As you might guess, I will not answer to “how is it again that female feminists are a root cause of injury and death to men?” Not only because there is no ‘again’ involved but because I stated my case and will respond only to those who care about everyone, not just some people.
“The problem is that most people who talk in this way about ‘equality’ are feminists and most feminists are not interested in equality as the rest of society might imagine it.”