Casey. dude… it’s not ‘misandry’ - it’s reported this way because it can always be argued that men are combatants, whereas it cannot be argued that women and children are.
Casey. dude… it’s not ‘misandry’ - it’s reported this way because it can always be argued that men are combatants, whereas it cannot be argued that women and children are.
It "can be argued" that women are combatants too, aiding and abetting attacks on Israel.
Neither argument would be correct though.
If this was a one-off this view might be credible. It's not.
When the BBC reports on Boko Haram kidnapping girls and omits to mention that all the boys get killed, is it because of misandry or because "it could be argued that" those boys were enemy combatants?
We're talking about a larger pattern here.
How do you rationalize this:
"As of 8 December, 1,318 civilians have been killed during military crackdowns on the pro-democracy movement, including 93 women, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) non-profit human rights organisation.
At least eight of those women died while in custody, four of whom were tortured to death in an interrogation centre.
More than 10,200 people have been detained in total, including over 2,000 women."
Look, if you don't see it you don't see it. I'm not trying to start a link-war or a revolution here, I'm just offering up my opinions of bias at the BBC in a thread about bias at the BBC. Maybe it's all in my head.
It's also entirely possible that if the world treats men as the disposable gender then the BBC treating the lives of men as less valuable than the lives of women is a likely outcome of that sort of treatment.
Casey. dude… it’s not ‘misandry’ - it’s reported this way because it can always be argued that men are combatants, whereas it cannot be argued that women and children are.
It "can be argued" that women are combatants too, aiding and abetting attacks on Israel.
Neither argument would be correct though.
If this was a one-off this view might be credible. It's not.
When the BBC reports on Boko Haram kidnapping girls and omits to mention that all the boys get killed, is it because of misandry or because "it could be argued that" those boys were enemy combatants?
We're talking about a larger pattern here.
How do you rationalize this:
"As of 8 December, 1,318 civilians have been killed during military crackdowns on the pro-democracy movement, including 93 women, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) non-profit human rights organisation.
At least eight of those women died while in custody, four of whom were tortured to death in an interrogation centre.
More than 10,200 people have been detained in total, including over 2,000 women."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59462503
---
Look, if you don't see it you don't see it. I'm not trying to start a link-war or a revolution here, I'm just offering up my opinions of bias at the BBC in a thread about bias at the BBC. Maybe it's all in my head.
It's also entirely possible that if the world treats men as the disposable gender then the BBC treating the lives of men as less valuable than the lives of women is a likely outcome of that sort of treatment.