Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

Good Question

May 8th, 2014 - 5:04 am

Noah Rothman: “Why Did Kidnapping Girls, but Not Burning Boys Alive, Wake Media Up to Boko Haram?”

Since the Nigerian Islamic radical group Boko Haram kidnapped over 100 schoolgirls in mid-April, the media and the American government have been up in arms over this outrage. With over 200 girls in captivity, Boko Haram warned that they may sell the children into slavery. ….

This focus on Boko Haram from both the media and the government is an unqualified good. The press arguably increased the pressure on global governments to do something about this backwards group of terrorists. But Boko Haram is not a new phenomenon. It was not long ago that some – including this author – were asking why this group’s atrocities were not generating any attention in the press.

On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.

All of the victims were boys.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Boys have always been victimized by revolutionary movements, genociders, and terrorists ... and in large numbers, vastly larger than girls. Why? Boys are more valuable as impressed fighters in asymmetrical warfare ... there is little invested in boys, in terms of time and training, so they make very good cannon fodder, drone fodder, IED planters (hey, if it goes off prematurely, so what ... it's just a kid!"), and you can give a cheap AK47 to a ten year old and he can probably put as many rounds down range as the average adult recruit ... and again, if he croaks, so what.

Plus, boys are usually more inclined to want to fight than girls (it's biology as well as culture), and boys are always eager to prove how "manly" and useful they can be to authority figures, like terror cell leaders.

But these boys, ripped from their hovels and used as disposable war materiel, are not nearly as sympathetic icons here in the west as are girls.

"Bring back our girls", chirps Michelle on her TwitterPic. But what about the boys?

And did the Boko Harum leaders take advantage of the West viewing their actions through this female-protective cultural prism in order to provoke even greater horror and loathing?

Why yes. That's why they're called "terrorists".
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I honestly think Michael Totten's take on this makes more sense. Namely, the scale of the abduction went up, and there is uncertainty over the girls and their fate. Also, the despicable leader of Boko Haram is basically trumpeting it for the world to see.

Let's not become like Obama and Holder, and assume bias just because of disparate impact.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you Dr. HS and kudos to my brothers on here who see the issue clearly. Indeed, it seems that some here have read "The Disposable Male" by Michael Gilbert! One other factor probably in play here - the WAW (Women are Wonderful) effect and the study that shows that females have a strong in-group preference that males lack. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274Put all these together - Voila. Some "Patriarchy!"
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
When I was studying ethology (animal behavior), the professor posed a question on a test. If you were a predator and you wanted to wipe out a population, how would you do it? The answer was simple, kill all the females.

One male and fifty females can poplulate a city. Fifty males and one female can barely poplulate a house. This is the reality of biology.

I agree with jpollar, males are expendible. And the reason why is because they don't give birth. Hence, nobody cares if they live or die. Females, on the other hand, are not expendible, but rather necessary for the survival of a population.

The problem with the coverage of this story is that it's steeped in feminism. And it's hypocrictical. Nobody cares when boys are killed. But when girls are enslaved, everybody looks the other way. Such is the hypocrisy that is feminism.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Interesting, Gawains ... but I have always heard that in primitive societies it's the women who are usually more disposable ... to the point that female infanticide is a relatively common phenomeon. Boys, however, are valuable as fighters, and as hunters.

In other words, I don't believe that Boko Harum kidnapped these girls because in their mind they're more valuable captives than boys. I would bet they did so because they know that capturing girls and selling them off would provoke more horror and revulsion in the west than capturing young boys, because girls are thought to be more vulnerable and innocent than boys. For a terrorist, more terror = more success. Terrorists don't succeed by annoying people.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is also forced conscription of male children in parts of Africa.

I don't know if it's any better to kidnap a 7-year-old boy, put a gun in his hand, and let him get shot at while he shoots other people ... forced, don't forget.

People don't really care about that as much because it's not that far off from kidnapping an 18-year-old boy and doing the same to him - which occurs in many Western countries and could occur again in the United States. There is even a list of ready-to-go candidates, and if you don't provide your name to Selective Service in the US, you don't get financial aid for college and you have committed a felony.

Girls, well they are oppressed and have to work on not smirking too much in their Dear John letters should said boys ever be drafted. They have it hard too - trying to get across that they are now screwing that new guy who didn't get drafted.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
I see two reasons for this difference in coverage:

1) Yes, our media is female-centric. They are really more touched when something bad happens to girls than boys.

2) Sex sells. Also, if it bleeds, it leads. And this story has sex trade, sex slavery, and lots of blood. Disgusting as it sounds, this is probably a more marketable event.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think that the journalistic oversight was sex-based. The larger bias is that it is necessary to protect the fiction that secular liberals have no enemies except domestic conservatives.

If one starts reporting the truth about a war of Islamic militants on innocent Christians, it will start to appear as if there are sides forming. In the same way that they practiced denial of the reality of the Cold War, the secular lefties are terrified of an actual conflict with Islamic militants.

To be reduced to being merely a member of one side of a real conflict rather than an invulnerable transcendent judge of all sides is a fundamental fear of the modern secular narcissist, a fear that currently shapes all American foreign policy and all news coverage of its manifest failures.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Harm to males only matters when it affects women. Re: HRC's statement about women being the true victims of war: widows, mothers, etc., not the men who were killed.

Issues of child custody and access, along with awful child support orders and enforcement only come to attention of the public because it affects 2nd wives, and *their* children, or that women might get stuck with such orders. (Not that the Texas AG has the stones to prosecute women in arrears, beyond the posting of a token female meth-head on a wanted poster next to 40 indigent men.)

Men die earlier in every metric than women, but we have 7 federal agencies devoted to women's various health issues - zero for men.

Men are the largest portion of homeless.

Men commit 5 times the amount of suicides. Twenty two veterans will commit suicide today, if the average holds.

Men account for 95% of workplace deaths.

These will become an issue when it affects the ability of the government to take money from men and give it to women, and not before.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Males are disposable. Society as a whole does not care if we die...they never will. It's a hard pill to swallow. I think it will have to get worse before it can get better. Male suicides, trauma and almost complete annihilation of our sex will have to be on the magnitude of Nazi concentration camps.

Women running the world won't stop this genocide either. Only women dying will. Nobody cares if a man dies. Nobody.

We're expendable utilities with no agency.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you limit your statement to a handful of western societies, including the USA, you'd be correct. In most of the world's societies, males are much more valued than females. That would be true in virtually the entire Islamic world, most of the Hispanic societies of the west, and virtually all Asian societies ... as a "general rule", of course, to which there are always exceptions. That in many societies females have low status is a sad matter, but such societies also have a history of under-achievement compared with Anglo-Saxon-Franco-German societies where women were always treated with higher regard.

But here in the USA we have been converted, almost overnight, to a gay-feminist-dominated society. Note that I don't use the term "matriarchal", which implies a form of standardized two-sexed family structure. In the gay-feminized society of America today, families don't matter ... indeed, children and families are an impediment to the gay-feminist dream, that is, unless society attempts to deny gay couples the right to have children, then it becomes a cause celebre. The most media-celebrated family arrangements today seem to the the "Bobby and Sally have two mommies" in which the only useful function for males is to generate sperm for artificial insemination. And we can suppose that eventually science will figure out how to nullify even that need by cloning or other non-sexual reproduction method.

Look at much of what passes for popular Hollywood entertainment these days, and it's filled with teen fantasy movies with kick-ass female heroines who are vastly more deadly and effective than the sorry male bad guys they dispatch virtually effortlessly. The message from these films is that "sorry, males ... we don't even need you anymore for mere physical protection."

Sorry - didn't mean to go on so long, but that is the cultural transformation that is already well underway in this nation. It is completely un-American, running completely counter to what we have been, and it is high time that there be cultural and legal pushback.

Many thanks to Dr. Helen and others who are helping to raise awareness.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
jpollar,

This is painful to hear. I understand that it is probably true, but painful to me nonetheless.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nothing shocks me anymore Dr. Smith. I'm probably the first man in US history to be awarded sole custody of his children and then turn around and have to pay support because I couldn't get the order enforced in another country. On top of that...I don't even get to communicate with my children anymore. I got to see them for 5 minutes last month when i flew half way around the world for the sixth time in the past two years. I now know how Chris Mackney felt.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All